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

****REBUTTALS**** "TUF, do you know it if somebody struggles only for his interests he turns the struggle into the fight or quarrel, if somebody struggles for the truth he goes on the struggle until to find it?So, the purpose of the challenge was to show “the length or the lifetime of love in the life is shorter than the length or the lifetime of life in the love (that’s life based on the love). But you have started blaming me for turning this into a mild form a odd and communicative banter…" "You call this “a debate” or not, of course it is your business. But I say it “a philosophical proposition”. Look, you are still asking me what I decided to prove with this saying. But I am not trying anything to prove, I wrote a saying which was proved by the all great messengers, by the all devoted mothers to their husbands, by the all real friends…in history. There is nothing to prove. But here you could not understand the gist of the word “Life”. You confused that is why started blaming me in dropping, conceding… that is why you are turning to voters.Why do you seem to not care about making relevant arguments to half of everything I have said to you? "It's because you have literally dropped every argument I have made against you. I am starting to wonder if you are insane. You know this entire conflict would have been dis-missed, and maybe even we could have had a good debate challenge if you actually knew HOW TO READ.So my question to you is.... "Because I have not still received even a one argument from your side, which may count worthy to take account. Really, you did not understand the gist of the saying. Because it is beyond your belief, way of your life and your outlook."Are you freaking kidding me?! I made 3 different arguments that all apply to the resolution! PLEASE DEAR FREAKING GOD explain to me how they do not relate to your case? You won't explain this to me, you continue to ignore reason, and are speaking plainly out of your arse. I want you to tell me how "C1: In order for love to exist, life must first exist" Does not apply to the freaking resolution.Now tell me how does my "C2: Love Exisiting in life provides perfect value" Doesn't apply to the resolution. Especially this one mate. This is one HAS THE FREAKING RESOLUTION IN THE SUBTITLE!? Tell me.... How is it "not worthy to take into account?"And last, explain to me in g reat detail how my "Contention 3: Love exists because life allows it to exist" does not apply to the resolution. Dear audience, my opponent has not done any of this, and here we are at the END OF ROUND 4!! He hass the BOP, which he has not upheld. He has the burden to argue my case, which he HAS NOT EVEN FREAKING ATTEMPTED, and he has displayed poor conduct all around. I don't know if my opponent smokes a fat pound of weed before he tries to debate, or if he is just naturally insane.Maybe both."Just I am go on this debate because the rounds have not finished. You wrote: He agrees with me on basically all my points to some degree. Lol, I have not agreed with your even one statement. Where did you take it? You are happy because I thanked you for explaining me the debate.org rules?!I do not want to repeat and understand all that you are not able to understand. To me with you to nowhere."Gramatically, logically, and sensibly, you make absolutely no freaking sense. I don't know how in the freaking world you expect to win debates the way you are going now. ****REITERATION OF MY CASE****My opponent has dropped my entire case, and has made a fool out of himself. So I will re-cap over everything that went missed, so the audience will have a clear view of what I am attempting to prove in this debate, all of which was not touched on by my opponent.My first contention was on theory.C1: In order for love to exist, life must first exist.This one was an imprtant one for my opponent not to drop because it is essentially the crux of this debate. No matter what kind of clarifications my opponent tries to impose as to what is the direct meaning of this debate, the fact remains, that he values love over life for this debate. I attempt to explain how life existing above love is more logically accurate, as love was created within life. This is a concept my opponent never even tried to touch on.C2: Love existing within life provides perfect value!This one lies directly in line with the resolution for several reasons. One the entire resolution of this debate is fixed on creating value! It says it right in the topic of the debate! Anyways, I explain thoroughly how life is and always will be valued higher than love, because not every person in the world can feel love. Insertnamehere for example, is asexual, meaning she can't love anyone. Therefor, all she has to do is value life!C3: Love exists because life allows it to exist.Scientifically, love cannot exist with out life. It's all about the mental process, thought process, idea creation, etc. Every thought stems and Idea, which then turns into an action.This is the last thing my opponent fails to acknowlege.It is for all these reasons, I urge the votes to vote pro! Thankyou!