Love is not natural

The problem with my opponent is this, he will say something and when it is been rebutted, he tries to use it as his own advantage. My opponent once said, ....and they lived happily ever after' now I rebutted this and he claims am changing the motion. It is my opponent who don't even understand the motion. He didn't even prove that love is natural rather he concentrates on giving rymes and lyrics as if this is a poem. REBUTTALS my opponent don't even understand what he is saying. He claimed that: :the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, andlove. See that underlined word? Love? So we have a dictionary example of love being described as an emotion. Now, the dictionary clearly said 'emotion of love' the dictionary did not say that emotion is love rather it said, we have emotion of love. So my opponent's claims holds no water. My opponent said, Now, the blinking of your eyes is natural, it has a purpose to clean and cleanse your eyes. As does love, it has the purpose of providing us with feelings needed to attach to a mate for the duration of mating, for providing children. But just like you cannot choose to blink your eyes, you cannot choose who will trigger your love. Now, if you don't choose who triggers your love, will you be at home and it will find you? My opponent contradicted himself because while trying to rebutt my argument said that 'if you are not happy again then you look for someone else' yet he still said that you don't look for someone to trigger it. What a nonsense. My opponent equally moved on by using inanimate object like tree to explain his argument where he asked 'are trees not natural just because they start small and need time to reach full strength? That trees grow doesn't mean that love is natural. Love involves two persons but a tree grow alone. So why use that as an example? My opponent also asked is uprising of the child not natural? Readers please look at my opponent's line and argument and choose. Uprising of child involves one person for goodness sake. Love they claim is between two or more persons so why that example? We are really talking about proximity and connotation which involves two persons. My opponen is already lying against me and is going out of the motion. Based on his argument, he is indirectly trying to say that I the pro. Has made resolution that love does not exist. My opponent also said: ""We are inherently programmed to love, whether it""s biologically, psychologically, or by some other mechanism we have yet to understand. ""Contrary to what philosophers, moralists, theoreticians, in-laws, and counselors have always argued, love is not a choice. It is a biological imperative. And just as evolution favored human beings who were able to stand upright, it favored human beings who felt love. It favored them because love has great survival value."" now this quote was made by someone like you and I and that does not mean love is natural. That is even what am saying, that even though we have quotes of love, I still need conviction and that has not been done by my opponent who base on giving quote without proper explanation. And he equally said' . Did they not fall for each other? Did they not fail to see the sun for the other person? Did they not get a primal desire for each other to the extent that they got married? We are to assume that they didn't get married for the gifts at the reception. It was not a love that lasted. Love is a feeling that is temporary as all other feelings, nobody feels happy every moment of his life, there will always be a time where they stop and will be sad instead for example. Based on definition of love, it is not meant to stop so why saying they might stop? As my opponent asked if they did not fail for each other. Now that is a practical lust because they had sexual desire for each other and they had to do what they have to do in other to get what they want to get. If love is natural, that 3years relationship won't die off like that. Moreover, if you fail for someone, there must be reason either because the person is beautiful in ur face or something else and withing a space of time, if you let go, the feelings fade. Love is never a natural phenomenal In conclusion, it is high time we call a spade a space. My opponent's explanation of emotion and love is not clear. And based on this, I still maintain that love is not natural