Love is not natural

Readers of the debate, my opponent is looking to debate style and semantics. He is completely avoiding the topic at hand and chooses to try and refute arguments I made that in most cases aren't even argument. He gives vague answers and in fact most of his assertions do not hold water, as he put himself.He starts by saying that I say something and then reform the argument, providing an example by citing my “and they live happily ever after.” If he had taken a closer look then he would have noticed that this was a name I gave to that section of the speech. He may have noticed how I only stated that cliché once and then said nothing more about it. Attacking the way I chose to present my arguments is a bad habit and will not earn you any points. I'm not sure where he got the argument that I'm giving out rhymes and lyrics from, I haven't putten a single rhyme into my speeches and as far as I know there aren't any lyrics in my rounds. He next makes a rather strange sentence; He takes my sentence, word by word, where I clearly state: “example of love being described as an emotion.” Reading that out of context and anyone could have seen that I am pointing out that love is an emotion, but he then starts attacking the case for not saying that emotion is love, something that makes no sense in or out of context. Love is an emotion, but that does not mean all emotions are love. The notion that emotion is love is as sensible as saying colour is blue. Emotion is a group term over all feelings and states of mind that we can feel, love included. Next up my opponent makes the case: “If you do not choose who triggers your love will you be at home and it will find you?” This is incredibly strange. Sex is natural, yet you won't find it at home alone. Hunting for gain is natural, but no animal will hunt anything if it keeps at it's nest. Socialising is natural, but being all alone at your house isn't going to help you. This argument was not in context to what it was trying to refute, that you cannot control who you will fall for, and instead tried attacking that you don't fall in love with someone you've never met because your alone in your home. Is that sensible? Next he claims I contradicted myself by saying that you can fall love multiple times, again taking the semantic pole of the debate. If you want to fall in love you might go down to the club. You want to fall in love, that's natural. But once you're there there isn't any guaranty that you will actually fall in love nor that you'll control who will spark your interest. This isn't a contradiction and is completely avoiding the topic once again. If we make that illogical, strange comparison to the eye again: you can choose when you blink your eyes, and the eyes can blink on their own. This is still a natural process. He then seems to make the assumption that the upbringing of a child is a single person process. It isn't. If I place an infant in a house equipped with everything it needs to survive, it will still die. That's the case with most mammals, they don't do well on their own for the first periods of their lives. The rest of his argument on that topic just fades out into nothing. He claims that I am lying without really understanding what I'm saying and why I am making the comparisons that I am making. The tree analogy was meant to show that a natural process can involve growth. The child analogy served the same process. Love needs growth, it has to be cared for by both parties involved. I'm not saying that my opponent is denying the term “love.” I am saying that it is natural. Next up he challenges my quote made by somone “like you and me”. All right, let's explain the quote and from what context it was taken. The quote was made from my third source of that round: “Love: A Biological, Psychological and Philosophical Study” by Heather M. Chapman as part of a senior honour project at the university of Rhode island. In the paper Chapman explains in great detail how love works within your body; How it matters to us physically, psychologically and in a historical context. Every single part of that paper was cited with a total of ten esteemed books serving as the reference point of the paper; written by specialists and following extensive researches. The quote I took was from the final section of the paper, the summary. I already went trough the biological process of falling in love: something my opponent hasn't addressed yet. I already pointed out that love has a purpose for evolution, but my opponent, as far as I can tell, has missed that. Instead he took his final arguments: The first one was that according to definition love is not meant to stop. I'm going to cite my opponents own definition that he concedes to: “Love definition: a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.“ Nowhere does it say that love cannot stop. My opponent cannot change the definition of something to make it fit his case. None of my three definitions of love assume that love cannot stop either. So this is a baseless argument that has nothing going for it. Next he says that it is practical lust because they have a sexual desire for each other and “they had to do whatthey have to do.” This is also false. Not all relationships are based off lust. I could go for my own personal relationships that didn't involve lust, but since I might be considered I biased source I'll instead go for this couple: [1] Meet the Crockers. They've been married for two years, something that might not be such a remarkable feat, but do you want to know the catch? They are sustaining abstinence in their relationship. So they can show us that lust does not have to be a part of the love, the affection and bonding stage I described in my opening case are sufficient enough. In the final argument made by my opponent he makes a note that three years in relationship won't die off like that. He for some reason is assuming that one day that couple woke up and went: “You know what, this isn't going to work.” In a hyper-majority of cases relationships end because something long term has been nagging at it for a while. Something traumatic might have happened. They might perhaps not have been paying enough attention to each other. He also stated: “if you fall for someone there must be a reason for it because the person is beautiful in your face or something else and if you let go the feeling fade” That argument is baseless. If we replace “love” with “happiness” the sentence is perfectly correct: “When you become happy there must be a reason for it, but if you let that reason go the happiness fades” Is the emotion of happiness not natural? I could make that sentence work for each and every single emotion that the human body is capable of producing, so in order to make this argument work either love is natural, no feeling is natural or this argument is completely faulty. You're free to choose. Conclusion: Readers of the debate, ladies and gentlemen, we are starting to see the grand picture. We are starting to see that love has a biological base, we see that it has an evolutionary purpose, we see that it is something we like and love to do and yet don't really have a conscious control over it. We see that it is a natural process, that love is natural. My opponent has a single round to answer each and every argument that I've already made, some of which have remained unanswered as far as from my opening statement. He has a single round to explain precisely what makes love artificial. He has a single round to explain why love is not natural and I'm expecting better arguments than illogical comparisons with eyes. I like my opponent to avoid the topic of eternal love for love isn't eternal, nothing is. The sun will die, every natural life will end, your own body will soon be nothing but rotting remains that once was a natural life. Love is no exception. My opponent has one round to show that love is created, not felt. 1)http://www.larknews.com...