Define Love Objectively

It's refreshing to see someone who doesn't debate with arrogance. You were very concise with no embellishment/exaggeration. I would like to start off by saying I completely agree with that Oxytocin is the feeling of love. My argument now is that you did not, in fact, disagree with me, but instead solidified my argument. I will create a path to why you create Oxytocin in your brain and then lump up inevitable outcomes of the reasons into a variable to more abstractly call what love is without losing objectivity. So you feel this when your subconscious mind interprets certain actions? To use my own bias as an example, I feel good when a woman gives me a compliment. Would you suggest that feeling is Oxytocin in the brain? So because I have that feeling now, my thoughts are changed from that new chemical reaction. I now want to do actions that encourage more of that behavior to attempt to replicate it. This is the part where you can debate more semantics over the implied logic. This act of selfishness produces acts of selflessness. I now want to give her things or tell her something to elicit the same feeling that she gave me or do something for her. In my rational mind, all of the things I do or say are to improve her quality of life. I would even say that a person making fun or laughing at someone CAN be an action from love in a subconscious attempt to diminish the ego so that that said someone could be more open to what the person really wants to say. I did put "CAN" in all caps to iterate that action might not be the result of Oxytocin. The semantical argument is whether or not true selflessness exists. I do label all the actions that are brought from said chemical reaction is what causes true selflessness which would imply that selflessness is a series of selfish desires. This is how I will define not being selfish. I have made a mistake in my argument because of that. I should have said selfless instead of not selfish. If wish to win on that technicality I do not disagree. For my fans out there, like I said, I can mislabel how things are, but my logic still remains true. I will endeavor in the future to not make that mistake again. My only argument to save my reputation is that a series of selfishly motivated actions can lead to not being selfish to oneself. To give one's life to save someone is known as one the greatest acts of love. You literally end your ability to feel that Oxytocin so that another will continue to feel it. The only time that can happen is if one truly believes in something that is greater than ownself. Perhaps you need that belief in order to feel that Oxytocin in the first place. You are in fact being selfless with that belief. I would postulate that you can not feel love if you only believe in yourself. I believe in that woman who compliments me. I believe her opinion is justified. In my opinion, that is not being selfish. So in order to experience that Oxytocin, one must believe things beyond oneself. Thank you for identifying the roots in my tree. My statement is the fruit of such roots, so you are right in saying," . .. .. .Which if he values logic and evidence will parallel mine exactly. " But as I said in my earlier preamble, you have not argued against mine but instead solidified it. Because I used "love" in the form of a verb, that would imply the actions of love. In addition, I would postulate that actions require time to be taken. Love always causes such actions, even as small as just thinking about the other person. Thus I say my statement remains true. I define "love" as taking the time to give what others need and is not selfish. The reason I didn't say "want" is because the word "need" does include emotional, mental, and physical needs. My theorem implies that it's wrong to just love your personal group over Humanity, but doesn't degrade the word itself or even say that can't feel love. Also, this doesn't have to be specifically with people. You can love how the sun rises in the east sensualizing the horizon in a very elegant metaphor to represents the starting of your day. You can believe that action was formed for you to see thus causing that Oxytocin reaction in the brain. I have decided to not edit this argument in an efficient manner because I want everyone who reads this to know who I am. I do not claim to know everything nor will I ever. I do arguments likes this because even though my theorem is the ultimate correct answer, we still have to build the line of statements or questions(i'm using the word "statements" to represent both) to said answer. I do not know pure objective science as your argument was from, but I do know there are a series of unknown statements that will lead to the statements cultivated from this theorem such as "I define "love" is taking the time to gives others what they need and is not selfish. " I don't think most people can truly accept what's best for Humanity until these unknown statements are revealed. Anyone who follows this theorem is following it on faith. Such faith is based on reason and logic. Humanity is trying to grow the tree itself from reason and logic, but I have shared the fruit of the tree so that you may just grow it in reverse. I tell you the truth, you can make any statements that conform to this theorem and prove it to be true. You have to know how to ask the right questions, though. If anyone is brave enough to do what I am doing, make friends with me and I will help you find those correct answers. Understand this, even though I have demonstrated what people call "misconduct", I have never bruised an ego without reason beyond myself. I am implying that I will not help those who are simply seeking power to use. Thus I have to get to know you before I am willing to back you. I give thanks to my opponent who has given me knowledge of my roots. I do not know what you will argue, but I hope that it will always bring truth.