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

I gladly look forward to debating this newcomer, and formally welcome him to the site! From the OP [Opening Post], I am assuming my friend Mr. Nasafiy, will be arguing for the position "Life exists in the love"; Where as I will be arguing for the position of "Love exists in the life". This is a very interesting debate topic, and I very much look forward to 5 awesome rounds of philosophical discussion, on quite an un-ordinary and exciting topic. ****FRAMEWORK/RULES****1. A forfeit in this debate should be deemed by the viewers as the loss of all seven points towards the contender.2. Dropped arguments should count towards the loss of a conduct point as decided by the viewers.3. Both debaters will remain kind, courteous, and respectful throughout the debate.4. Spelling and Grammar should be awarded as usual.5. As this is a debate centered around philosophy, statistical evidence shouldn't be required, however, source points should be awarded to the debater who best gives a strong sense of support and analysis for their case. Without further ado, let us begin. ****MY CASE**** DEFINITIONSLet me start by defining a few key terms. Let's start out with the most controversial one; Love. Love has several definitions, none of which are clarified by the instigator of this debate, so I assume it's a broad definition. My opponent never stated that this "love" was the love in which the first dictionary references, as a noun;"a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. " This definition implies that love is specifically for another human being. However, for matters of interest, I think the verb definition of this word would be more properly suited for the debate at hand, as it applies to all things, and is simply an emotion the impacts a strong feeling towards anything. Love: to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Exists: to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Life: the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Value: relative worth, merit, or importance: the value of a collegeeducation; the value of a queen in chess. . http://dictionary.reference.com...****MY CASE**** Okay so there are several ways I can attack this case, between Meta-physical aspects, and theory aspects. So my contentions are going to be a little different in contextualization. This will also open more room for discussion with my opponent on various angles throughout the debate. Contention 1: In order for love to exist, life must first exist. First, the theory argument. Here I will be presenting the classic arguments of "Did the chicken come before the egg? ". Again this point is to take the resolution into it's abstract and implied meaning. If life didn't exist, then the being in question could not ever love. Love then exists within life. In order to conceptualize a though process, that can sustain the mental capacity required in which to experience the emotion of "love", as defined above, this being must be adapted from something, somewhere. Right in the definition of life, we see the phrase that states "The universal human condition". The very definition of the word life, then proves in and of itself, that in order to feel such an emotion, we must first become. Why is this argument important? Because this concept goes much deeper than this. A human may have love for one of several different things. A human can love another human. A being, can love an activity, or item. Love can mean many different things in context to the title of this debate topic. However even if we were to use a different definition of the word life, "Fun and lively", this would still only be filling a requirement of Life and love, thus giving life the priority. What do I mean by this? Let's give an example shall we? A human can find entertainment in a hobby, or activity, which creates a "Fun and lively" (IE life) environment for that individual. Thus the human can describe doing that activity, as something he "loves". This creates Love within life. . http://authenticliving.com...Contention 2: Love existing within life provides perfect value! Second, the priority argument. Contradicting what the title of the resolution says, Love existing within life actually seems to make perfect sense for creating value. But what is value? The definition says relative worth, merit, and importance, but how do we deem something worthy of being all the great stuff? The answer is love. Yes, when we love something to a degree, it provides a hierarchy of prioritization. We love the things we do, because they add prosperity to our lives. Love in and of itself, is an optional emotion. Their are plenty of other emotions abroad however. Anger, Fear, Confusion, Sadness, contention, Etc. These emotions are all apart of the life we already live. So how do we create value in life? We love! However, by recognizing this we must also recognize that the biggest contributing factor on improving the quality of our lives, is to in fact, love. Love must exist within life, because love is always improving on life. . http://joannecipressi.com...Contention 3: Love exists because of life allows it to exist. Third, the scientific argument. Love only exists, because of a being's thought process, and emotional knowledge and subjective know how of what love is. This is empirical, because humans are born and raised, taught from their own youth to know and understand what "love" is. Thus love is created purely off of human attachment. But for purposes of staying away from semantics, let's apply this theory to other beings. This is what I will call the "Love/Like" argument. What significant detail does the human brain require in order to make a specific distinguishment in the two different words Like and Love? Like: to take pleasure in; find agreeable or congenial: We all liked the concert. . http://dictionary.reference.com...This definition seems to apply to a similar way of loving something. However this word "love" Uses the word "like" in it's own definition? Could it be the that notable difference in the word is the passionate and deeper meaning from the word love? This means to imply that to love something, must mean that we value it's existence over something we say we like. Thus love takes a priority on the word like. Back to the examples again. A human can say he loves the beach. This beach, however, is the epitome of life! For without life, this beach does not exist. Life being the cool summer breeze that passes through the smooth and sandy terrain in which our individual has such a passion for. This beach does not exist outside of life. Life creates the premise in which all of the things that beach gives to the human. The sand between his toes, the water as it rushes, races, and crashes beautifully before him. The simple and known fact is that this is all possible within a concepted idea of what life is. Therefore, if life was not congenial, than the human never experiences love! What experiences does this human feel when graced with the delights of the beach? Do they come from his subjective experience of what is pleasurable or enjoyable in life based on his learned behaviors? The human must have learned somewhere that such things can be loved, thus are worthy of loving, creating love. All possible because of life! . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...****CONCLUSION****I have come at this resolution from a few different view points, and am excited to extract a healthy controversial debate between me and Dr. Nasifiy! I feel I have provided a strong a firm basis to believe that love is purely existent and reliable to life, thus feel I affirm the resolution. Thankyou, and I look forward to my response!