All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges.

Nice response! Now I'm starting to understand how this debate topic can work in your favor. Conditional in a literal sense can be applied to any uncontrollable condition being met in order to achieve love. The way you're debating against the notion of unconditional love is by pointing out conditions that must be met even though those conditions are outside of the recipients ability to change or alter. What is working in my favor for this argument is that it doesn't matter if there are mothers who do not love their children. By claiming that ALL love (past, present, and future) is/was/will be conditional you have put the burden upon yourself to prove that there are no examples of a mother loving her child regardless of what the child did or didn't do. This is what I mean by a controllable condition because you can generate any sort of arbitrary conditions that were met for love to be present. For example, the condition that the child be physically born and indeed have existed in order for love to be present. Well duh, this debate would be meaningless if that were the case there are always going to be physical conditional requirements for love to exist in the first place. The real point of this debate and the task incumbent upon you is to prove that there are no relationships in the world between two people where their love and adoration for a child (parent, brother, sister, loved one) was unconditional in the sense that it was uninterrupted and existed regardless of any action that the recipient did or could have done. Certainly emotions are inherently conditional but what we're really arguing here is whether or not love and the ability to care is conditional and while love has an emotional expression its important to remember that love is not defined by its emotions and the biological chemical processes that produces them. Love is more of a state of mind then just the emotions that result its presence. What I mean by this is that you can care for a person indefinitely but you can't stay permanently happy (or any other emotion) these emotions will naturally be interrupted. "Besides there are millions of cases where by all accounts true love was present and then actions were taken that changed the situation resulting in the annihilation of love. " Indeed there are. But this isn't really the point of the debate, is it? I came here to argue that there are cases that have existed and indeed do exist today where true love / care has been unconditional and present regardless of any actions that were taken. I think this is the problem with your logic. You're too quick to equate love as a basic human emotion but really it's more complex then that. You can be incredibly mad or sad with someone but still have love present which is why it is such an enduring force. I clumsily described it as a state of mind, but I think we can both agree (assuming you have been in love) that it's far more guided and persistent then being merely happy or sad. These emotions are certainly bi-products but not a defining element of love. I do agree with your points on religion. You do hear the term "unconditional love" thrown around by the clergy, it's certainly present within Catholic tradition and specifically used to describe God's love for us. Which is ironic because that's assuming you fulfill the condition of believing and indeed following him in the first place or else it's off to hell for you. The example you gave with Bob and Homer is funny but it misinterprets and oversimplifies my point about utility and identity being related. You cleverly exaggerate my point to claim that they are somehow the same thing, but in reality I'm merely pointing our that by liking what that person provides or what their presence does for you is appreciating part of their identity. This isn't to somehow suggest that their identity is somehow limited to their utility relative to you. This would be to suggest that all we are is the our ability to be used and what we "provide". I agree with your points about religion and I think that unconditional love operates on a human level. Perhaps a Christian would like to argue and describe the existence of some divine unconditional love, but thats not why I'm here. I've seen that humans are capable of selflessness, compassion, and indeed love without conditions. I concede that unconditional love is not present in most relationships because it doesn't define and is incompatible with friendships and most relationships we are presented with. That's why I began with a mother and her child. Our human nature to love and care stems from a evolutionary priority which began with the selflessness that was required for early man to survive. That's not to say that love doesn't serve any contemporary purpose in our society but thats another debate all together :). I'm very appreciative and tolerant of your honesty. And please expect the same honesty from my arguments. Because I'm predominantly drawing from personal observation of human nature and am in no way trying to ignore or gloss over the upsetting reality of our nature. Nor am I trying to imply that unconditional love is somehow a controlling force over behavior, in reality I expect that it would have the opposite effect. Another great round. Seems like you've had this argument before :) -connor