The Instigator
studentathletechristian8
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Alex
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/4/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,863 times Debate No: 7680
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (14)

 

studentathletechristian8

Pro

Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love. I am pretty much saying that besides God's love, no one can even ever love another person unconditionally on this earth. Two people may love each other very much, but I am certain there are conditions where that love cannot exist or last. For example, let's say Mary and John are madly in love with each other. If John goes to Mary's house and kills her whole family, I can guarantee that Mary would not love John anymore. There is always a condition that exceeds love for one another. Hence, unconditional love can never exist on earth.
Alex

Con

Hello, I would like to thank you for posting this interesting topic, it is one that i have not seen before.

Since my opponent did not present a definition of "unconditional" I have found one that i believe suits the topic well.

Unconditional: not limited by conditions; absolute.

To go into more detail, I think what he is referring to is love that is strong, and does not change based on changing circumstances that might occur, and the love still stands through different conditions.

Please be sure to let me know if you disagree with that.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Going on, my opponent's proof is that if John killed Mary's family then she would not love him anymore, I have a couple contentions to that.

1. Some woman would still love the man, they would most likely leave the man, however that does not necessarily change her love for him.

2. How is this relevant? This is a rare case in which could possibly effect ones feelings for another. But what if he didn't kill her family? She would still love him.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

A couple could live their entire life without something like his example happening, therefore due to his only current argument unconditional love is possible.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Next, animals, this is not restricted to dogs however it is the animal I will be focusing on.

Say a man, lives by himself with no family or real friends, but he has a dog. The man treats this dog very well and they spend a lot of time together, dog's are very loyal and love their master unconditionally. Especially given the scenario, I think that dog would love the man unconditionally.
________________________________________________________________________________________

It is going to require some pretty good evidence to convince me and the readers that this unconditional love could not possibly exist.
Debate Round No. 1
studentathletechristian8

Pro

unconditional love

unconditional-not limited by conditions; absolute

love-a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person

The resolution is that unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love. Because unconditional love is constant love that remains in any possible condition, all I have to prove is that there can be one condition where the love would change. If I can prove there is one condition where a person cannot have the same love for that person, then the resolution will be resolved and I will have done my job.

I do agree and consent to your quote "love that is strong, and does not change based on changing circumstances that might occur, and the love still stands through different conditions." This is the love I refer to, and this is the unconditional love I will prove cannot exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1." Some woman would still love the man, they would most likely leave the man, however that does not necessarily change her love for him."

Yes it does change her love for him! You contradict yourself. You said that the woman would most likely leave the man, which means she can't stand to be around him. Her previous love for him included the fact that she liked being around him, and since you say she would leave him, her new "love" for him would change. Her new "love" would include the fact that she does not like being around him. Her love has changed, so that love is not unconditional, for the love changed to a different sort of love, and the regular love is no more and changed itself.

2."How is this relevant? This is a rare case in which could possibly effect ones feelings for another. But what if he didn't kill her family? She would still love him."

The whole point of the debate is to prove one condition that would make the love alter or change. That means it does not necessarily have to happen, but there just has to be one possible condition to prove that love would change. Here's that condition: if a person you loved killed your whole family, killed your favorite celebrities, killed you, and blew up the whole earth, then your love would definitely change. It would prove that there is no unconditional love. Unconditional love means that with ANY POSSIBLE CONDITION, THE LOVE WOULD STAY THE SAME. If a loved one killed everyone and blew up the whole earth, your love would obviously change, which means it is not unconditional, and this applies to all the "loves" out there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Say a man, lives by himself with no family or real friends, but he has a dog. The man treats this dog very well and they spend a lot of time together, dog's are very loyal and love their master unconditionally. Especially given the scenario, I think that dog would love the man unconditionally."

This is truly humorous. All I have to prove is that there is one possible condition that could change that love. If the man starts to abuse the dog, not feed it, and give it away, the dog would eventually forget about the man and have no love for him. If the dog bites the man continuously and even threatens the man's life, the man's love for the dog would also change, making the previous love henceforth conditional, certainly not unconditional.

Unconditional cannot exist. There is always one possible condition that can change a form of love. It does not matter if a person continually loves someone else, the form and passion of the love would automatically change, like when someone kills your family, yourself, and the entire earth. You may still love that other person, but the form and emergence of that love would change, proving all forms of love to be conditional, not unconditional.

love is a condition within itself, and conditions change, helping my point
Alex

Con

Okay, I apologize, I definitely misunderstood the resolution when I took this debate; however, that will only change my argument.

I will go back to the topic of the man killing the woman's family.

I did not contradict myself, her love could remain the same; however if he went to jail they probably would not stay together. You really cannot tell another human being that their love would change because of a circumstance. The woman could have also hated her family and not cared, it is up to the loving person whether of not their love changes, and it is POSSIBLE in that circumstance that it would not change. And the possibility is all i need.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

As well, I will present some of my own loves that are unconditional:

My love for faith is unconditional
My love for honesty is unconditional
My love for Music is unconditional
My love for writing is unconditional
My love for worship and praise is unconditional

The list goes on and on.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Aside from myself, how about a mother and her newborn baby? Mothers love their babies unconditionally, since the babies cannot really do anything, the love is unconditional.

________________________________________________________________________________________

What my opponent is trying to do, is telling us what we can and cannot love, and how that MUST change in the occurrence of his circumstance, but that is up to the individual.

All in all, the only argument that my opponent has presented is that if a man killed the woman's family, her love for him would change. Which is not true, most likely it would, but it is possible that it would not.

With that argument negated, and some of my own unconditional loves presented, I await the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
studentathletechristian8

Pro

My opponent is a very good analyzer. I hope to rebuttal his arguments.

First, I would just like to say that both my opponent and I agree that God's love is unconditional, so it should not be held against either one of us. I only added it to the resolution to set a restriction.

I would also like to say that this whole week, I have had to take care of a sick relative. I just have a couple minutes, but I have truly had no time this week to debate. I apologize greatly, but I will try to come up with a decent argument before the round is up.

The thing you said about John killing Mary's family, you totally said something different second round than first round. Originally, you said that she would probably leave him, which means her love for him would in some way change and be conditional. Now, you say that he will be sent to jail and she will still love him for she could have hated her family and not cared. How about if he killed everyone she loved, the world, and herself? Her love would have the condition of possibly changing, and that's all I need.

For you whole list of things that are "unconditional" loves of yours, you have no way to prove your love for them is unconditional. You simply stated your love for them was unconditional, you gave no evidence or reason why they are unconditional, just saying they are is not enough. I could simply rebuttal by saying:My love for faith is conditional, my love for honesty is conditional, etc. You gave no reasoning or proof. Love is very abstract, and you did not explain why they are unconditional, for the things you listed were very abstract and conditional within themselves.

The thing about the mother and the newborn baby, how sweet! But your reasoning behind it is faulty. You say mothers love their babies unconditionally, but that is an assumption. There are moms that do not love their babies, they find problems with them. But I will rebuttal the common situation that you speak of. For it to be unconditional love, the mother would need to love the baby under all possible conditions that occur with the baby. If the baby grew up and killed her loved ones, the earth, and herself, that is a condition where her love would change. All I need to prove is that there would be one condition where the love would change.

About what we can and cannot love, you have to prove that in fact unconditional love truly does exist. Saying that there is a possibility it would not chane is not good enough within itself. How can you say love is unconditional? Love is very abstract, and some people say they love others when truly they do not. There are different emotions and variables that go along with love, so how can it be unconditional? Love is a condition within itself, and it tends to change as people go through stages of life, involving things like maturation and hormones. You have not proven that there can be a constant unconditional love. The phases and stages of love are always changing as natural occurrences changes and as people grow older. Unconditional love cannot exist on this earth.

I believe I have successfully proven the resolution. I thank the readers for their time and hope you can forgive me for my late round entry, my relative has been sick this entire week. Thank you
Alex

Con

I would first off like to apologize for my opponents circumstance, i hope that your relative is okay.

"The thing you said about John killing Mary's family, you totally said something different second round than first round. Originally, you said that she would probably leave him, which means her love for him would in some way change and be conditional. Now, you say that he will be sent to jail and she will still love him for she could have hated her family and not cared. How about if he killed everyone she loved, the world, and herself? Her love would have the condition of possibly changing, and that's all I need."

Okay, so the love could change, and it may not. Neither of us win that won because it could go either way.

Unfortunately for you the burden of proof lie on you. And you did not present a case of how those loves of mine could be conditional, which is even what you yourself said is your job to do.

I will go into them anyhow.

My love for faith:

Faith, in the traditional sense. Confidence or belief, in anything that i hold faith in, could do nothing to effect my feelings for it.

My love for honesty, the truth. No matter how brutal it may be, i always prefer the truth over lies, and nothing would change that.

Music, a gift from God, i appreciate all kinds of music, and nothing it could do would change my feelings for it.

You get my point.

__________________________________________________________________________

About the babies, I know many woman who have unconditional love for their babies, and you accepting that as the "common situation" if conceding to that point.

I am discussing the love for the baby, you said when it grows up and kills people then it might change.. But then it would not be a baby when it killed them, it would be an adult or possibly a child.

________________________________________________________________________-

"About what we can and cannot love, you have to prove that in fact unconditional love truly does exist. Saying that there is a possibility it would not chane is not good enough within itself. How can you say love is unconditional? Love is very abstract, and some people say they love others when truly they do not. There are different emotions and variables that go along with love, so how can it be unconditional? Love is a condition within itself, and it tends to change as people go through stages of life, involving things like maturation and hormones. You have not proven that there can be a constant unconditional love. The phases and stages of love are always changing as natural occurrences changes and as people grow older. Unconditional love cannot exist on this earth."

There are indeed variables with different loves; however, there are also constants like the ones provided that will not change.

I have stated my own personal unconditional loves that do exist, in my own heart. When people tell others they love them when they really do not, that does not mean that, that is the case for everybody, just those select people. However, maturation and hormone changes does not change everybody's love for the things i have presented. I am 16 years old, and have gone through more changes in the last several years that I will in the rest of my lifetime, but my faith and love for Christ is still the same as it was when i first learned about him, only stronger.

Thank you for the debate, it was truly an interesting topic that really made me think.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JBeukema 5 years ago
JBeukema
If the nature of the thing loved is changed, is it the same thing? Do you still have the same love for the original thing?
Posted by trendem 5 years ago
trendem
Conduct: Tie.
S & G: Tie. Nothing slowed me.
Arguments: Pro. Pro showed how that all loves change with circumstances. Regarding Pro's rebuttal to "love for music", "love for honesty" etc., I thought the rebuttal satisfied Pro's burden of proof at the time he made it. Moreover, it is fairly easy to apply Pro's general argument to these loves. Most importantly, I just wasn't convinced that there could exist unconditional love.
Sources: Tie.
Posted by alex117 5 years ago
alex117
I agree with studentathletechristian8 of what he said "Unconditional love can never exist." For example, Jesus' love is so great that we can't even describe it.................................
However, I think alex_Hanson911 gave some good points.
Posted by prozoro 5 years ago
prozoro
Conduct-tie
S&G-Con
arguments-con
Sources-tie-no sources
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Student, clarify something for me please. You said "if a person you loved...killed you..then your love would definitely change." Is your primary definition of love meant to extend beyond the death of one of the members? If so, to what end? Until both parties die?
Posted by JBeukema 5 years ago
JBeukema
You might both agree to the axiom, but that does not make it true. You are both basing your arguments on a faulty foundation. You can debate the conditionlessness of Man's love, but can reasonably compare it to nothing
Posted by studentathletechristian8 5 years ago
studentathletechristian8
first off I would like to say that me and my opponent both accept that God's love is unconditional, so we will not be debating about that. i just wanted to set a restriction
Posted by JBeukema 5 years ago
JBeukema
'Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love'

To make this argument, three things must be proven:
-Humans cannot love unconditionally
-God exists
-God loves unconditionally.

until the 2nd is proven, TI is wasting time on an argument drawing from an invalid, unproven, and unaccepted axiom
Posted by Puck 5 years ago
Puck
To love is to love something - it has limits it is something you value - unconditional says either I value everything equally - or you value nothing equally which contradicts the notion of love.

To value one thing means to hold it above its opposing - to be unconditional then it cannot relate to personhood itself as individuals will contain within them opposing values - one cannot equally value opposing constructs.

What that leaves then is for god to love everything that 'trait exists' (humanity) - it still remains that he values nothing more than any other thing (outside of existence/non existence) - which leads to what it is then he is loving - valuing not a person but the sole trait of being alive.

It removes the god loves me for me aspect entirely - if you want to try and find meaning in that go ahead. ;)
Posted by Alex 5 years ago
Alex
I am a christian, of course i am not going to argue that.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Bob_Gneu 4 years ago
Bob_Gneu
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by numbany 5 years ago
numbany
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 5 years ago
tribefan011
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 5 years ago
Charlie_Danger
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 5 years ago
untitled_entity
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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 Zealotical 5 years ago
Zealotical
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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 Urania 5 years ago
Urania
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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 trendem 5 years ago
trendem
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Crack-Is-Whack 5 years ago
Crack-Is-Whack
studentathletechristian8AlexTied
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