The Instigator
Garfield
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Beginner
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

There is no such thing as love at first sight.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Beginner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,280 times Debate No: 68944
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

Garfield

Pro

First Round is acceptance.
Second round is opening arguments.
Third round is Rebuttals and closing statements.

If you accept this debate, you will be arguing that 'Love at first sight" exists and is true.

love
[luhv]
noun
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

Thank You in advance for accepting.
Beginner

Con

I accept both the resolution, the debate and the definitons. Go.
Debate Round No. 1
Garfield

Pro

Love at first sight is a common trope in Western literature, in which a person, character, or speaker feels romantic attraction for a stranger on the first sight of them. Described by poets and critics from the Greek world on, it has become one of the most powerful tropes in Western fiction.

So, in essence love at first sight means, that the fist time that you lay eyes on a person, you fall in love with that person. But how can that be? You see a beautiful woman (or if you are a woman, a handsome man) walking down the grocery aisle. You, supposedly, fall in love with that person, and supposedly love at first sight occurs. But that man or woman could be serial killer. He or she could have traits that you do not like. Lust occurs, not love. In the definition above, love at first sight means love for a complete stranger. So in this instance, a relationship between mother and her child, does not have any relevance in this debate. A child is no stranger to his or her mother. They were together for 9 months! However love at first sight between a stranger and another stranger does not exist, because you do not know that person. You have a lust, a sexual attraction to that person, you do not love that person.
Beginner

Con

These are the definitions agreed upon along with the resolution.

Garfield's Misconduct.
"If you accept this debate, you will be arguing that 'Love at first sight" exists and is true.
love - a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend."

Nowhere in our agreed resolution does it say that our discussion is limited to family-like love toward a romantic target.

What is love?
The definition of love provided by my opponent says that love is a '"warm personal attachment of deep affection as for a parent child or friend."

Now there are many definitions of love, and my opponent's definition is pulled directly out of dictionary.com[1]. I will note that other definitions of love on the very same page from which my opponent pulls his definition includes:
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person
3. sexual passion or desire
7. sexual intercourse; copulation.

I would just like to observe my opponent's arbitrary derivation of the second definition and setting it as the only definition of love. I do not argue this constrained definition as I've clearly accepted it. I feel, however, that my opponent's attempt to further constrain a definition which is already unnaturally limited in scope is a conduct violation. I would like the judges to take note of my opponent's misconduct in attempting to change the definitions after definitions have already been established.

Contention 1: Love is a Biological Process
Feelings of love are caused by natural chemical reactions. The specific chemicals related to love at first sight are oxytocin, endorphins, testosterone, norepinephrine, dopamine and phenylethylamine (or PEA).[2]

The ones we shoul probably be concerned about for the resolution are oxytocin, the 'cuddle hormone' and endorphins, the chemicals associated with feelings of attachment and comfort. These hormones, particularly endorphins, very specifically align with my opponent's definition of love which is limited to 'personal attachment' as for a parent, child, or friend. Notice that this definition doesn't necessarily confine this personal attachment to parents, offspring or friends, rather it uses these three as examples only. I digress.
Since hormones are caused by chemical triggers and we cannot explicitly control the release of chemicals from within our body, if our mind decides to released endorphins or oxytocin as a reaction to specific people, we cannot help but have deep affection or personal attachment for these people. Since love is just a set of chemicals, love (personal attachment or deep affection) at first sight, or the release of endorphins specifically at first sight, is entirely plausible. In order for my opponent to negate, he must show that the release of endorphins in response to people you've never seen is impossible.

Scenarios of possibility:
1) You have an online relationship with a person. Let's say by the time you see them for the first time, you've already developed a feeling of warm personal attachment or endorphin reaction toward them. Love at first sight, in this case, is confirmed.

2) Consider the following poem from a mother to her unborn child showing her deep affection for it:

"I write this letter to my unborn child from the depths of my soul.
You've entered my womb and made my life complete and whole.
I never thought I would be chosen for such an awesome task.
It is a greater blessing than what I ever could ask.
I can almost imagine you in my mind.
Beautiful, Happy, Bouncing, flashing a smile so kind.
Feeling you flutter is a sensation like no other.
It does wonders for the joy of this soon-to-be-mother!
You create a glow in me I never knew I would see.
It is true happiness that sets me on cloud nine manifested deep inside of me!
You're my baby, my child, my heart, and my wonder.
I pray we create a bond that no one can put asunder.
You're a designer's original! A creation from the King!
I can hardly wait for you to enter the world and see the joy you bring.
Sweet baby of mine, you're a magnificent gift from above.
Living proof of how your father and I have shared our love.
I hope you have your father's eyes
Then you will go into the world able to look at all things wise.
I hope you inherit my ability to plan.
With that you will be able to face all things in life as a strong woman or man.
I hope you receive from your father his selfless ways.
For this the Heavenly Father will bless you, as he did him, all of your days.
I hope you learn from my spirit and let no one take it.
Believe me you will need it in life, and many will try to break it.
But with that spirit you must have your father's center.
With that you will be cautious of any door you enter.
I want you to have my curiosity.
There's nothing wrong with questions you may blurt!
But receive your father's discernment,
so you'll know when to let go before getting hurt.
Have my big heart; know what emotions are and how to be real.
Share your father's strength so you can handle what you feel.
Share my sense of humor! Laugh a lot it helps you through life.
Share your father's sense of duty. Know how to be serious and take strife.
I'm emotional so I tell you it's okay to blubber once and a while like your Mom.
But learn to develop what your father has; an excellent sense of calm.
But most of all the things I wish for your father and I to share.
I wish we teach you to love, respect, strength of mind, and to care.
These are my feelings, wishes and hopes for you.
You make my heart and soul sing!
I welcome you to the world and thank you for the joy,
my little queen or king.[3]

Love for this child is already established before it is born. Thus when it is first born to the mother's eyes, the mother will love it.
Women on netmums.com confirm that they do indeed love their babies before they're even born.[4]

I turn this over to PRO with much love. <3

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
[2] http://chemistry.about.com...;
[3] http://www.familyfriendpoems.com...;
[4] http://www.netmums.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Garfield

Pro

Rebuttals-

I have not made any misconduct. before this debate was accepted, I was asked to define Love. Which I did. I was not asked to define Love at First Sight, which I did in Round 2.

Scenario 2
In your last argument you said and I quote,

"2) Consider the following poem from a mother to her unborn child showing her deep affection for it:

"I write this letter to my unborn child from the depths of my soul.
You've entered my womb and made my life complete and whole.
I never thought I would be chosen for such an awesome task.
It is a greater blessing than what I ever could ask.
I can almost imagine you in my mind.
Beautiful, Happy, Bouncing, flashing a smile so kind.
Feeling you flutter is a sensation like no other.
It does wonders for the joy of this soon-to-be-mother!
You create a glow in me I never knew I would see.
It is true happiness that sets me on cloud nine manifested deep inside of me!
You're my baby, my child, my heart, and my wonder.
I pray we create a bond that no one can put asunder.
You're a designer's original! A creation from the King!
I can hardly wait for you to enter the world and see the joy you bring.
Sweet baby of mine, you're a magnificent gift from above.
Living proof of how your father and I have shared our love.
I hope you have your father's eyes
Then you will go into the world able to look at all things wise.
I hope you inherit my ability to plan.
With that you will be able to face all things in life as a strong woman or man.
I hope you receive from your father his selfless ways.
For this the Heavenly Father will bless you, as he did him, all of your days.
I hope you learn from my spirit and let no one take it.
Believe me you will need it in life, and many will try to break it.
But with that spirit you must have your father's center.
With that you will be cautious of any door you enter.
I want you to have my curiosity.
There's nothing wrong with questions you may blurt!
But receive your father's discernment,
so you'll know when to let go before getting hurt.
Have my big heart; know what emotions are and how to be real.
Share your father's strength so you can handle what you feel.
Share my sense of humor! Laugh a lot it helps you through life.
Share your father's sense of duty. Know how to be serious and take strife.
I'm emotional so I tell you it's okay to blubber once and a while like your Mom.
But learn to develop what your father has; an excellent sense of calm.
But most of all the things I wish for your father and I to share.
I wish we teach you to love, respect, strength of mind, and to care.
These are my feelings, wishes and hopes for you.
You make my heart and soul sing!
I welcome you to the world and thank you for the joy,
my little queen or king.[3]

Love for this child is already established before it is born. Thus when it is first born to the mother's eyes, the mother will love it." End Quote.

In your poem, the mother was talking to her UNBORN baby. So before that child was born, as you yourself said, was already established. So when a mother lays eyes her baby the second it is born, she is no doubt happy, and loves him or her, however a immediate sense of, "I love this baby!" occurs, and this is because 9 months before that day, the mother had established a love for her child. And also the child has learned from his or her mother and has also grown to love his or her mother. [1] So here we see that, Love at First Sight does not occur.

Scenario 1
"1) You have an online relationship with a person. Let's say by the time you see them for the first time, you've already developed a feeling of warm personal attachment or endorphin reaction toward them. Love at first sight, in this case, is confirmed."

Again the same thing applies with this scenario. You have already met this person online. Before you met face to face, you have built up a love for this person, so when you see them finally face to face you, again (as with the scenario with a mother and her child) do not have a sudden "I love this person!" since you have learned about this person previously.

Contention 1: Love is a Biological Process
Feelings of love are caused by natural chemical reactions. The specific chemicals related to love at first sight are oxytocin, endorphins, testosterone, norepinephrine, dopamine and phenylethylamine (or PEA).[2]

The ones we shoul probably be concerned about for the resolution are oxytocin, the 'cuddle hormone' and endorphins, the chemicals associated with feelings of attachment and comfort. These hormones, particularly endorphins, very specifically align with my opponent's definition of love which is limited to 'personal attachment' as for a parent, child, or friend. Notice that this definition doesn't necessarily confine this personal attachment to parents, offspring or friends, rather it uses these three as examples only. I digress.
Since hormones are caused by chemical triggers and we cannot explicitly control the release of chemicals from within our body, if our mind decides to released endorphins or oxytocin as a reaction to specific people, we cannot help but have deep affection or personal attachment for these people. Since love is
just a set of chemicals, love (personal attachment or deep affection) at first sight, or the release of endorphins specifically at first sight, is entirely plausible. In order for my opponent to negate, he must show that the release of endorphins in response to people you've never seen is impossible.


There is a difference between love and lust.
"Lust generally dissipates after having sex and returns hours or days later. You can feel it for several people at the same time and not necessarily feel jealous. But when you’re in love, you are very possessive. And romantic feelings don’t dissipate after having sex; in fact, they can intensify. [2]

You can fell lust for multiple people at one time. You can walk down the store aisle, see a beautiful woman, or a handsome man, and you fell a lust for that person. Then you walk from aisle 3 to aisle 6 and you see another attractive person, and you feel a lust for that person. Then as you are walking out of the store, you see yet ANOTHER ATTRACTIVE person and you feel a LUST for that person. You can fell lust mor multiple people. However, being in in love, causes people to be possesive. Dating for example. When x's boyfreind is getting hit on by z, x makes sure to put it to a stop. Or when a's girlfriend is getting hit on by c, a confronts c and puts a stop to it. That is love, feelings for one person and one person only. If this "Love at first sight" really existed, you could "love" as mamy people as you want. Howver, that is not true love. As i have said before, true love, is feelings for one person, not 5 and 6 people in Winn-Dixie.

[1] http://www.parenting.com...
[2] http://www.chemistry.com...
Beginner

Con

"I was asked to define Love. Which I did. I was not asked to define Love at First Sight, which I did in Round 2."
Definitions are not requested. They are set and accepted in round 1, and I've explicitly accepted my opponent's definitions in round 1. Any definitions in further rounds can be debated. It seems my opponent is choosing to debate the definition of 'sight', and is setting 'sight' to mean being accustomed to the knowledge of something's existence.

Aside from my opponent's blatant, wild attempt to redefine the word 'sight' to fit his own purposes outside of resolution setup, aside from its blatant contradiction to the generally accepted definition, aside from its dictionary definitions, and let's ignore my opponent's arbitrary derivation of the definition of the word 'love' for now, allow me to present my opponent's definition of 'love at first sight' in Round 2:

"So, in essence love at first sight means, that the fist time that you lay eyes"

My opponent blatantly tries to redefine terms not once but twice, and contradicts his own definitions twice.

My opponent's own round 2 redefinition negates his round 3 rebuttal, which depends on the new definition provided in round 3. Does love at first sight involve eyes or not? Which is it?

Even with the contradictory definition, my opponent utterly fails to address my contention on chemical reaction.
This point is conceded and is alone sufficient to affirming the negative case.

For my opponent's multiple violations and his inability to address the negative case, I urge a full 7 point vote for CON.
I wish my opponent well and pray he does not repeat such vile debate misconduct in future debates. I thank him for the debate and would also like to extend thanks to the reader.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Garfield 2 years ago
Garfield
Thanks, i will make sure to do that.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
Learning it. Loving it. XD
Posted by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
PS: Learn to love Google Scholar. Type the phrase "Love At First Sight" in and check the first ten results.
Posted by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Garfield: Take more care next time you put a debate together. Your Burden of Proof was insurmountable in this case. To uphold your resolution you would have had to have proven that not one of the 100 billion plus humans that have ever walked the Earth have ever felt love at first sight. Love is complex, subjective and internal so doing this for a single case would have been a bastardly hard debate. Doing it for the entire species was impossible. Your opponent could have taken this one easily without ever resorting to semantics and granting you very generous definitions.

Better luck next time!
Posted by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Never debate with a hot head. It'll cause trouble every time.

If an opponent steps over a line give them the benefit of the doubt and point out the issue in a civil manner. It keeps the debate from getting heated and makes your opponent look dodgy but makes you look good for handling it well.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
Could've been better.. for both sides. :P
Posted by Garfield 2 years ago
Garfield
Ouch. Well good debate.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
I had a load of work, and a helluva lot of trouble figuring some things out.
Posted by Garfield 2 years ago
Garfield
Why in a bad mood?
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
I was in a bad mood. I could've dealt with this debate in a much more civil manner. Thanks paleo for the heads up.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
GarfieldBeginnerTied
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: Conduct is awarded to neither side. Pro defined terms poorly omitting romantic love from the definition and then tried to redefine. Con then hammered down the "omigod misconduct!" button in a needlessly adversarial manner. Con wins on semantics as Pro stated "love at first *sight*", not at first encounter. As argued by Con, many mothers love their infants at first *sight* and typically even before. For future reference, terms should be defined more carefully at the outset. Dictionary definitions are frequently insufficient to the point at hand. When an opponent steps out of line it is frequently more effective to deal with it in a civil manner than by being confrontational. Telling judges what they should do is an excellent way to ensure that they don't. Dealing with the problem in a calm and rational manner helps keep the debate on track and gives you a much better chance of getting the conduct points.