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

Round three of this... Er debate? Seems this isn't really a debate anymore though, as my opponent has kind of turned this into a mild form a odd and communicative banter, about who knows what!? Anyways, I will attempt to respond to anything that seems like an "argument", rather than an absurd statement.****REBUTTALS**** "I decided to drop those contentions which I count useless. Why did I do that, I will explain you it later."You never did explain that matey. Anyways, it doesn't matter much. You dropping and conceding these points, to me, just seems like to acknowledge and agree with me on their existence being a viable conclusion to the result of "Love existing in life" holding more value. Especially since one of those contentions specifically argued what was in the resolution! How can you possibly say that is not relevant to the debate!? You confuse me matey, but let us proceed with our "Debate" thing we have going on here. "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." In that case, then, you agree with rule 2 and 5 which state the dropped arguments count as a loss of conduct, and spelling and grammar are awarded per usual? Well, voters, you heard him yourself! Vote away!"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 understand that perfectly, however, do not see how that changes anything. In fact, under that same definition, ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY CONTENTIONS STILL APPLY! So what are you talking about mate? What's the point? Where exactly do you intend on going with this? You seem to have already dropped everything. Well we still have a couple rounds left, maybe this is your chance to try and redeem yourself by actually trying to argue something. Give it a try, friend, it might be fun seeing as this is a DEBATING website. "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."What exactly did I write that is so "feeble"? Sometimes I feel, even you don't really know what you are talking about matey. "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."What's your point? This is a debate argument, I am accustomed to how the rules work here. There is no single sided decision, it is simply what the voters feel is right. I feel, for example, that I have provided a much stronger case for finding value in life as opposed to love, than even you have, my friend. "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."You completely missed the point on this one. You earlier were trying to make love create life something like giving birth. My point was to prove that a person doesn't have to be in love to do that, so what value is there in love over life in this case? That child can still have a good life without love. "Why are you iteratively turning to audience, to the site viewers and checkers? Let him do their own conclusion themselves, please."Oh they will, sir. I am simply pointing out to them flaws in your arguments, and oddities in your speeches, as it is them who will decide who wins this debate. My question to you sir: Why do you seem to not care about making relevant arguments to half of everything I have said to you? Just curious. ****END ARGUMENT SPEECH****I am at a loss for words it seems, as what to make of the odd character of my opponent. He seems to be back and forth on what his own topic actually is.He agrees with me on basically all my points to some degree. Right now we are just talking in circles, and riddles, not really addressing the resolution, despite my effort and best attempts at trying to steer this debate back into the right direction.We still have two rounds, so I am hoping my opponent kicks into gear sometime soon. This discussion is getting awfully repetitive, and continues to get us no where.Back to ye, matey!