All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges.

Whoa! You started this third round swinging. Many claims to address, lets start with your digression into a discussion on semantics which is drawing away from the real question here, Is love a basic human emotion and therefore inherently conditional? Or is it a state that has emotional biproducts but is not limited by the same conditions of emotions? Unfortunately, before I can return to the real contention of this debate, let me take a little time to dismiss this bizarre notion that I've somehow forfeited my point or that I have inadvertently introduced a new burden of proof: "... the inability to prove a negative is not a proof of a positive. …But nice try though. :P :)" Nicely put, therefore my ability to produce a negative (lets not forget I am the Con here!) would be proof of my implied positive. The negation being in this case, that there are instances of unconditional love. This has gotten wordy and convoluted but my original point was that you have taken the challenge of explaining why no mother can have unconditional love for her child. It was merely a reiteration of your opening remarks. Next we have these gems, "So we agree. Heh, thank you for playing. Should I continue? I assume you want me to. :P" -Round 3 We agree on what exactly? That there are physical conditions to every action in the universe? Um, yes... I guess so. "If nothing else it is possible to inflict brain damage on a person in such a way that they hate you. Many examples exist of brain trauma resulting in severe emotional disturbance. It's an unbreakable chain of reasoning. And well within "could have"." -Round 3 Why just brain damage? In order to have unconditional love they need to fulfill the condition that aliens don't abduct them and turn them into crazy zombie mutants that murder and pillage. Or even they must meet the condition that she doesn't turn into a dragon and eat her once unconditionally loved and adored child. This is my point and this was my whole point during round 2 about controllable conditions and how your literal conditional approach isn't applicable to this debate because its far too abstract and arbitrary. We're speaking in hypothetical terms and using characteristics of human nature and the nature of human emotions to decide whether or not love can be unconditional. And just as all is seemingly lost, you return to our original points of contention with the same articulate and well supported points that have defined your first two rounds of arguments!: "This is known as the Appeal to Ignorance (I think). Sure love is complex but just because we don't know about some of it doesn't mean its super natural." -Round 3 Agreed, and I'm not trying to suggest that it is somehow "super-natural" in the sense that it can't be explain by natural processes (mainly the evolutionary processes that explain the notion of human altruism) but, rather, that it is a state of mind that has come to be defined by its emotional tangibility. "I've experienced love, but it was conditional. You're being underhanded. You're saying that if I don't believe that love is unconditional I've never ‘really' experienced love. I hope you do not presume to demean the validity of my emotions just because we disagree on their nature." -Round 3 It wasn't my intention to be underhanded nor was it my intention to demean the validity of your emotions. I wasn't even asking if your experiences with love have been conditional (Obviously, they have been or I wouldn't expect you to subscribe to the general philosophy that love can't be unconditional), all I was pointing out is that love is far more persistent then other human emotions that you are attempting to equate it with. I remember the first time I fell in love, I was in the fifth grade and I literally had a crush on this girl on through high-school. It was only until we left for college that I was able to move on but even that was tough. Certainly, that example of love was conditional but my point in saying all of this is that Love can be an enduring force, and when this endurance is introduced to the context of a strong maternal link it has the potential to be unconditional. Let's not forget that Adolf Hitler's mother still loved her son even after his suicide and the extent of his evil was revealed. Its a powerful psychological process that compels us to care regardless of whether or not the recipient is deserving or even fulfills the criteria required to deserve such compassion. "Now it's my turn to announce burden of proof issues. If you can prove that love is not an emotional state of mind, you will have secured for yourself a place in human history, as you will have shown the soul to exist, or at least room for it. I.E. Emotional sourcing outside the meat of the mind." -Round 3 Hahaha it looks like I have quite the burden to tote. And it is partially true because what I'm describing isn't entirely tangible but I would predict that there are biological processes that can indicate or signal the onset of love or adoration (Interesting side note: In 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year. Specifically, four neurotrophin levels, i.e. NGF, BDNF, NT-3, and NT-4, of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love were compared with levels in a control group who were either single or already engaged in a long-term relationship. The results showed that NGF levels were significantly higher in the subjects in love. Perhaps the notion of love isn't as abstract as you originally assumed). I also never meant to claim that it is not an emotional state of mind but rather a state of mind that has been equated to an emotion but in reality is far more persistent and incorporates a multitude of emotions. This could backfire on me but I would even compare it to the sensation of jealousy in regard to is ability to persevere and often times incorporate more then one emotion (in the case of jealousy: anger, sadness, shame). "Oh boy! Altruism FTW." "Please provide me a single example of a selfless human act. :) I'll save you time, you cannot. All human action is either willful, and therefore in service of will and therefore desire, or is involuntary and outside the realm of judgment." -Round 3 Interesting, you recognize altruism as part of the human condition but yet you argue that regardless of the appearance of selflessness the acts are inherently selfish because they are in service of will. This is an interesting point and taps into a discussion on how we would define altruism. I would argue that it is expressing less concern for yourself than for the success of the joint activity / welfare of others. I know we don't have the time to debate this but this is something that deserves some follow up. I hope to be receiving another challenge soon =). Except maybe this time take me on in my arena. Political processes either domestic or international, but judging by your profile and libertarian tendencies I think a debate about the role of the rich in an affluent society would be an interesting debate topic for us to duke it out over. It's been a pleasure. -connor