Love is not natural

However my opponent seems to have forgotten what we're debating, for if we read the last round he gave us he states the following: “My opponent is only given reasons to love and is yet to prove that love does exist. Finally, I still maintain that love does not exist “ All right, maintain that love does not exist, that is fine by me. Except we're debating If love is natural. If you want to debate if it exists you're free to do so in another debate. For the existence of love I've already given you a plethora of reasons that love exists as well as how it exists within your brain. I could provide you with more research on the chemistry of the brain when you're exposed to someone you love but unfortunately I'm not allowed to place further evidence on the table. So let's start our concluding round, shall we? In my last round I asked my opponent to properly define why love was artificial. I asked him to answer all of my arguments he hadn't already answered and give a solid case for the non-natural case. In his final round he failed to do so. To properly show what I mean I'll run over the debate step by step and show that I answered all of his arguments and what arguments he has NOT answered in my case. , just to have a small reminder on how the debate has gone so far. first round: definition Second round: My opponent defines love as a feeling of strong affection that includes sexual desire; not far from my definition. Natural is something that is existing or caused by nature and not made by humans He then says that emotion is not love. [answered in 4] he then says that lust from seeing someone attractive is lust, not love. [2; lust is the beginning stage of romantic love] he says that my mind is predominated with sentiments and emotions. [2 and 4. self-induced feelings are natural and love is an emotion] He states that love needs growth and needs to be harvested. [3, growth is natural] Illogical comparison to the eye begins. 3. The processes are not similar, and growth is natural] He starts the “love is eternal” stance, indirectly saying that because love can be terminated it isn't natural. [3 and 4. Nothing is eternal love is not a one time eternal process, it can fade and rise with time. ] he keeps hammering that love shouldn't be able to be terminated. [same] He concludes with a quote and the eye comparison. Round 3: if love between infant and mother is unconditional how I should explain broken homes and those that have murdered their mothers. [3. the two are irrelevant to each other. Infants cannot kill their mothers and the love fades like all other things. ] More notions that love is eternal, that infant and child love will last forever no matter the actual situations and communications between the two. [3+4: Love isn't eternal and just like being happy, hungry or sad can fade and vanish with new situations] He claims I didn't place any sources on how love is natural. [dropped; I had already placed 3 sources that backed me] He says that in order for love to form with friendship you must have chose that person and this love is a choice [partially answered in 3; you do not choose who you love. If you choose 5 friends you won't know if or who you'll fall in love with. You may chose the friends, but not the lover] next he attack the name of the chapter I gave to one of the sections in my speech. [dropped. it isn't a rebuttal to an argument, it's a rebuttal to style. ] he maintains that love is eternal, a magical solution to all communication problems in homes and families. [answered several times: love isn't eternal and problems can come up despite it] He then makes a bleak refutation that love isn't a natural process because it is in the brain, and says that it's rather lust. [4: Lust is only part of the equation, the first step. There are other love related processes that have nothing to do with lust,] Round 4: more attacking on my choice of style. My opponent says emotion is not love. [4. it's a group including love] He makes a strange argument indirectly stating that all things natural come to you at home [4] He says we cannot look for love and still not be able to choose it [4] He then reads my growth analogy literally and completely. [answered] He then says my quote isn't worthwhile without reading the source it came from and asked for context[answered and context given in 4] He then misunderstands the definition of love or tries to change it. [4 and dropped] “Love is eternal” [answered. .. often] He says that my explanations of love and emotions are not clear. [answered here: I gave you a detailed explanation on the bio mechanics of love. I gave you the evolutionary purpose and the social need for love. I'd say that I'm clear enough] Now, ladies and gentlemen, you can see that most, if not all, of the arguments that my opponent used to support his case were answered and refuted. However there are a large number of arguments that my opponent did not attempt to refute in my case that really should have been answered for his case to hold. Some of which include: The chemistry of the brain when a person is in love: If love is unnatural it shouldn't be so hardwired to produce certain hormones and reactions in our brains as it does. The evolutionary purpose of mating and caring for the young (lust doesn't provide the will to protect your child) The social need of being protected, having someone to care for and our general desire to love Why love(or any natural process) should be an eternal process, or shouldn't stop. Since such a large part of his case was built around this statement my opponent should have protected it much better. Having failed to protect that natural processes are eternal any arguments that involved that notion are null and void. Why [infant] love is hardwired to appear between parent and child. An unnatural process shouldn't be able to appear in infants nor the parents. Every single case I made in round 4; including “Natural things don't happen at home; the single person upbringing; The new context and reliability of my source; the Croockers and their lust free love. And finally, my opponent did not respond to my request to fully define artificial and what makes love man-made. If love isn't natural it must be artificial, but nowhere in my opponents case did he fully prove that love is artificial and what made it man-made. “All you need is love! ” ok, those are song lyrics, but it still is only the name of the conclusion chapter, not an argument in case anyone was wondering. Ladies, gentlemen and other readers of the debate. We can see that the case my opponent made isn't nearly as strong as he puts it out to be. Throughout the debate he has made rather illogical comparisons, twisted the definitions he himself put on the table to make it better fit and misunderstood the resolution not once, but twice. His cases are mostly uniform with the weight of his arguments often residing on one or two “facts” that I have shown you how simply do not work. My opponent however has not addressed my case to the same extent, and I've already shown you, dear readers, how love is natural as opposed to artificial. My opponent may have refuted some of my arguments as to be expected and did a fine job debating, but there were too many that went ignored or unsuccessfully refuted. Therefore we must conclude that the evidence of love being natural is overwhelming. For love is a marvelous, a feeling that we want to have, a feeling we cannot control. It's a feeling we yearn and a feeling we idolize in arts, music and cinema. We see that it is natural, and comes to us not trough choice; not trough will nor desire and not trough practicality, but because it is in our nature, in our blood. To conclude the debate: we simply love to love, and that is completely natural.