"Love exists in the life" - does not prove its value!

Wow... Erm... Interesting response there... Well I guess this will be simple, because my opponent has dropped and conceded basically Everything.****REBUTTALS**** " But It very surprised me when you wrote some framework rules. Except a couple of points as if the rest were directed to win the debate taking occasion to lack in my English grammar knowledge. I think we both should pay or give priority to the validity and logicality of statements, right?"Of course this debate is meant to weigh the validity and logic of statements. Framework is a common formality for debaters to set up. Me being the Pro for this debate, thus has the burden to present it. At least that is how is works here on Debate.org. I am sorry if you have problems with the rules that were set up, though it would help if you pointed them out specifically. The grammar? I said that would be judged normally. Meaning it's the debaters choice to grade that. In any case, Debate.org has a Spelling and grammar checker that will fix any and all errors you may encounter, so no worries their. Basically the purpose of framework is to keep the debate from becoming a sloppy mess, and helps the debaters and viewers read through each other arguments respectfully. "First thing you should had taken account was logical understand my saying. I wrote: "theory of "Love exists in the life" is much more weak than the theory of "Life exists in the love". I does not mean that love does not exist in the life. I have never said it and will not."I fail to understand what your point is here. My entire case is built on proving the value in weighing life over love, and creating examples philosophically about how this is true. By ignoring this you are playing a semantics game. What am I supposed to argue? It's almost as if you expect me to say something like:"Well sometimes life can exist in love, but ultimately love exists in life." Can you see how weak of a statement that is? Good sir, you really have not specified 1 tiny thing about what your actually attempting to prove here. As the instigator of this debate, it is YOUR responsibility to add clarity to what you want the debate to actually be about. I accepted this debate, not really knowing what in the world you were talking about, thus is why I made arguments from several different view points to attack your case. Dear audience, surely this is deserving of a conduct point. "You began your debate with giving definitions to words separately as if we were analyzing its words. And you chose the definition which would made you more comfortable to go on this philosophical discussion. I strongly say and give you a golden advice "Never do that". Because if you choose something yourself when that thing is belonged not only you it is counted a single-sided decision."You are clearly new here to debate.org, so I will go easy on you on this one. Normally I would say something like "Are you freaking serious!?".Definitions are standard here on DDO as well. They count as sources as they help add clarity to resolutions. Your very confusing resolution sir, was in desperate need of definitions with the extreme lack of clarification put into your opening argument. You could say I very well "saved" this debate. Also what do you mean "Never do that"? You don't actually give any reason why that is socially un-acceptable? Definitional framework helps provide the readers with a better understanding of the debate. Again, you are new here, so I will overlook this. Opponents can agree with definitions without having a "single-sided" decision."- But don't you know, The God created us with Love?"Maybe your faith tells you this, but this is purely belief. First of all you must prove that a god created life (not that I want to get into a debate on religion, as I am purely agnostic), but second of all, even if there is a god who created us, who are you to say it was out of love? For all you know this "god" put is here just because he could, and wanted to see what he could create.- But don't you know, before to begin life with a girl we base on: I love her/him or do not?" Actually this is completely 100% false. Plenty of guys go to clubs and pick up girls they don't love, just so they could have a "fun time". Loving someone to create life, doesn't even enter into the equation."In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI)."http://www.abort73.com...A lot of these come from one night stands, and people wanting to have fun. Romance barely enters into creating life these days, my naive friend."The rest of your contentions are continued on the base of your first contention. Therefore I am to skip them too."Oh really now? This is what leads me to believe you didn't even try to read my case, If you had, then clearly you would find error in your statement. My first contention clearly states the philosophical arguments of "what came first" in which you basically conceded and agreed with me on.My second contention strictly argues the resolution prima facie at face value. I talk about the specific value that can come from prioritizing life over love as pertained by the resolution. This contention literally has nothing to do with my first contention.Dear audience, contention 2 has been dropped and conceded. Thankyou.My third contention specifically states how love can only exist because of life's existence. This is completely different as well from both contentions 1 and 2, as it states the scientifically reasons why the two are different, and why life takes priority to love.Dear audience, contention 3 has been dropped and conceded. Thankyou. "Have you ever read or heard the story about "The Mom with one eye"?. If not, try to understand a reason of why your mom does not desert you if she loves you? She loves you that's why your family life is continuing."I completely agree that my mom loves me and that my mom will not desert me. I can say however that ultimately it is true for everyone else. Hundreds of mothers around the world love their babies, but are forced to leave them for some reason or another.Either way, this point of your means nothing in context to your own resolution. A mother loving and not deserting her child, doesn't mean that love doesn't exist in life. ****CONCLUSION****So yeah.... Looks like my opponent dropped literally my ENTIRE CASE.Please push over arguments and conducts for this.I have proven through several different theories, that life cannot exist through only love, philosophically, scientifically, and valuably.My opponent has yet to actually attack my case. He still has 4 rounds to do so however, so I wish him the best of luck in the remainder of this debate!Thankyou, audience, for reading.