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

A double wow!!! I did not drop everything as you deem. I decided to drop those contentions which I count useless. Why did I do that, I will explain you it later.About the Debate.org rules, OKEY, maybe I could not find enough time to read all the rules. So all your rebuttals about the rules, I respect them, my brother. Thank you.You wrote: 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 are right, my comrade. You really did not understand the gist of the saying. Look, I have not said that there is no love in the life, I said “Life exists in the love”. Let me explain you what it means: “The theory of love relations in the life are usually being weaker than the theory of life in the love”. I KNOW, TUF, love exists in the life. I am with you not playing or not trying to prove what has formed by the modern people in the recent years, which has never been or will not to make up the essence of LIFE. I am just trying to say how it must be originally. I did not expect you to say something feeble as you wrote. If somebody is not able to understand or if somebody is not in old to understand such philosophical sayings, this is another thing.To: Also what do you mean "Never do that"? You don't actually give any reason why that is socially un-acceptable?I wrote: Because if you choose something yourself when that thing is belonged not only you it is counted a single-sided decision.When I remembered the God, I did not mean to offer you debate on religion. I, as you, do not want to get into a debate on religion. But having read your statements on belief I think it will be more difficult to explain you the gist in 5 rounds.When I wrote “- But don't you know, before to begin life with a girl we base on: I love her/him or do not?”, I have never thought that you would reply me with “Plenty of guys go to clubs and pick up girls they don't love, just so they could have a "fun time". Oh my God, TUF, look, when I said something about pure life, about pure family deserving respect, you tried to win the debate through the tales in night clubs, through the statistical evidences which were made because of worried results? Yes, you are true – Plenty of guys go to clubs and pick up girls they don't love, just so they could have a "fun time" – but it does not mean to begin pure life, family with that girl. They only meet each other in clubs, then having a nice night and the next day they think to find an another girl. BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LOVE EACH OTHER, THAT IS WHY THEIR ATTITUDE (LIFE) WILL FINISH ON THE NEXT DAY OR WEEK. THERE IS NO LIFE IN THEIR LOVE. From curiosity sir: Why are you iteratively turning to audience, to the site viewers and checkers? Let him do their own conclusion themselves, please. In any case, you are my brother, TUF.