Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
10
debates
35.0%
won
Topic
#3956
What Is Love?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Description
What is love? You choose your side and belief of the topic. Argue if your view is better or wiser and logical than mine
Round 1
Pro
#1
Love encompasses many things. In fact, love is associated (at least should be) with everything we do. In I Corinthians 13:4-8a of the Holy Bible, one will find a list of the characteristics of love.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails...
According to these verses, love sounds like a wonderful idea to embody and possess. Who wouldn't want patience/slowness to anger, always hoping, and perseverance? This Scripture is not only a description of love, but also a guideline for how we all need to utilize love in our lives.
I would define love as caring for the necessities of others. BARE MINIMUM. Love also requires sacrifice. Loving your neighbor as yourself.
There is an ultimate example of love which is displayed in Jesus Christ death on the cross. He cared about us, so he died for us; there is absolutely no greater love than to die for another. Furthermore, Jesus did not die for only one, He died for everybody. Because the Son cares about everyone.
Why does Jesus love us so much? We do not always live up to the laws set in the Bible. Some do not even believe in His existence. Imagine putting your life on the line for a brother who pretended that you did not exist. What is the reason?
Romans 12:21 states, "Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good." And it is good to love. Love is the tool for overcoming death--figuratively and literally. If one does not love others, they cannot be happy or even live effectively. Loving one another is good for the community. If everyone is looking out for one another, in say an ancient tribe, the entire group can promote well-being. They will be safe and strong because each member wants to benefit the community. Love is effective
Earlier I wrote, "Love is associated with everything we do." Yes, Love is a lifestyle. Or the act of loving is a lifestyle. From the time one wakes up to resting their head at night, they can include the pursuit of love into all they do. Love promotes peace. For example, take a military personnel. Why would they fight to protect those around them? Of course, they can do that simply because it is just their job. They want to keep enemies away. However, that only explains what they do. Not why they do it. Their "why" can be many things. "I care about my family." "I just want to do something productive." But, which is constituted of a deeper why? What can be deeper than "I am in the military because I care for those around me and their well-being"? There is certainly nothing more effective than that. What is more beneficial for a collective group than all having the mindset of caring for the necessities of others?
Before, I had written "If one does not love others, they cannot be happy or even live effectively." So, what happens when someone does not love others and focuses on benefiting only themself? This type of thinking can certainly further the individual's goals. I doubt they would be a hermit, so they definitely would interact with others. But only for self-preservation. But how can one live effectively if there is ONLY pursuit of managing one own's self and nothing for others? If everyone in a community developed this thought process, who would seek the betterment of the entire group? Would any of them even see themselves as a community? How can the community stay together and not fall apart if there is only selfishness? More importantly, what is the standard for love? Where does love come from?
These questions are both answered in the statement: God is Love. Assuming He exists (that is an entirely different argument for another time, so let us assume He does exist), a perfect love can only come from a perfect being. Only a perfect being can set the standard because imperfect beings, such as ourselves, are flawed. How we can we set a universal and wholly standard if we are going to be imprecise to some extent because we are not perfect? That's why God has to be love. If He was not love, and He is the only perfect being, how could a standard of love be decided? What would be the correct decision? We could only ever come up with a flawed answer because we are flawed. There has to be a higher power to give us truth.
Lastly, we are made to love. We are designed to love. A creation must follow through with its original and eternal design. If it goes against its purpose, there is only chaos and confusion. Genesis 1:27a states, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him..." Since we are made in the image of God and God is love, we are also to love. There is no other reason for our existence. Love is the reason of our existence.
Your turn, YouFound_Lxam
Con
#2
Thank you Pro, for stating your case, as to what love is.
I think that Pro has confused, defining love, to describing love.
To define Love, we have to go through the deep meaning of what it really is.'
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails...
Yes, these are all of the products and ways to describe love, but to define it, is a different story.
I believe Love to be more than just one thing, but rather multiple things instead.
Love is Free Will.
Love can be defined as many things, but one of the things that makes up love is free will. Think about it. No person would be able to love without free will. Love can't be love, unless someone is choosing to love.
Since you brought up God, I will also use him as an example. God gave us humans free will.
How do we know this? Well, if he didn't give us free will, we would not have the ability to love. We would just be mindless robots doing what God commanded of us. God gave us free will, because he loves us and wants us to truly love him, by choosing him over our worldly desires.
Love contains morals.
Tell me, if you truly love someone, then you would do anything for them correct? And Love contains doing, nice things for others perse.
Morals are not what people want to do, and feel like doing, they are things that people should do, because it is "morally right."
So, when you love someone, or something, you are doing something that you may not like, but you are doing it because you love that person or thing.
Love is what the scriptures say
Since you bring up God and the Bible, I will also use Biblical knowledge in this debate.
Love encompasses many things. In fact, love is associated (at least should be) with everything we do. In I Corinthians 13:4-8a of the Holy Bible, one will find a list of the characteristics of love.
I don't agree that this verse only encompasses the characteristics of Love, rather this scripture purely defines it.
Love is patient
Love is being patient in everything you do. Love is taking your time to explore and listen to really understand.
love is kind
Same principle as morals, being kind is one of the biggest aspects of love.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud
Love is pure and good. Therefore, nothing bad can come of it.
It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Again, love is the feeling that you have of others, as well as others have of you. You keep both of those pure, and you have true love.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails...
This scripture can argue for itself.
So, in conclusion for my first argument, I believe that Love is free will, and defined in I Corinthians 13:4-8.
Your turn
Round 2
Pro
#3
Rebuttal #1
Subject: Confusion of Definitions and Descriptions
Con: “I think that Pro has confused, defining love, to describing love.”
I do not agree with this. Con goes on to say that the Bible verses I Corinthians 13:4-8a I used are in fact descriptions of love, and I did use them as descriptors.
Con: “Yes, these are all… ways to describe love”
According to this quote, Con agrees with me, yet says I am confused.
Con: “...this scripture purely defines [love].”
In the second half of Con’s argument, they use the aforementioned Bible passage to define love which they had previously identified as descriptions and not definitions.
Con: “I don't agree that this verse only encompasses the characteristics of Love…”
Con is saying they do not agree, as in do not agree with something I said in my argument. However, I never said that I Corinthians 13:4-8a is only and limited to encompassing the characteristics of love. Con, please refrain from doings things of this nature.
Conclusion:
Firstly, in Con's argument they had stated that I Corinthians 13:4-8a were descriptions of love and not definitions; then that was reversed. I ask who is confused here. I believe to say that I was the one who was confused is an unnecessary statement and easily dissolved. It is possible that, ironically, Con has confused themself.
Rebuttal #2
Subject: Free Will
Cons says “Love is Free Will.”
Then, Con says free will is a subset of love in the quote below.
Con: “...one of the things that makes up love is free will”
Con also says, “God gave us humans free will.” Con says by God giving us free will, we are able to love. This statement means that love is now a subset of free will, not the other way around as previously stated. Love is now a result of free will; free will enables love. Con changes the structure that love and free will correlate with each other a few times throughout their argument. Does Con truly have a final estimate of love and free will together?
Well, Con does have a conclusion: “So, in conclusion for my first argument, I believe that Love is free will, and defined in I Corinthians 13:4-8.” In regards to what I had said before, those two statements have apparent contradictions in Con’s text.
Rebuttal #3
Free Will
(Part II)
Love is definitely a subset of free will as explained in the following.
Take the simple phrase, "Love is free will." This otherwise means Love is a choice.
In other words and put frankly, love is just something you choose.
- That is all that is being said in the phrase, "Love is free will."
- That sounds much like a description of love–a vague one at that–and nowhere near a definition.
- Saying "love is freewill" is not precise.
Improvement
A better way of stating this would be: giving free will can be loving. The ability to choose love is a gift of free will.
Additionally, there are many subsets to free will other than love. The ability to choose sin is also a result of free will. The ability to choose desert over broccoli is a result of free will. Love does not make up free will.
Final Conclusion:
Con’s conclusion is really: Love is something you choose and is defined?/described? in I Corinthians 13:4-8a.
Add-On:
Since I am already heavily critiquing Con's argument...
Con: "Morals are not what people want to do, and feel like doing, they are things that people should do..."
Morals are not something that is "done." "Morals" is grammatically a (plural) subject and not an action verb. One does not "do" morals.
Sources:
Con's First Argument #2
Con
#4
Morals are not something that is "done." "Morals" is grammatically a (plural) subject and not an action verb. One does not "do" morals.
Yes, but one does have the ability to follow morals, in which you are doing the morally right actions.
Additionally, there are many subsets to free will other than love. The ability to choose sin is also a result of free will. The ability to choose desert over broccoli is a result of free will. Love does not make up free will.
Free will is an aspect of love, as well as the scripture 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.
If you're trying to define love as one specific thing, then you have failed in your first argument.
There is no one thing that Love is, rather the aspects of Love, make up Love. That is why I say Free will, and 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 is Love.
You argue that they are just aspects of love, and that love itself is something deeper.
I argue that the aspects of Love is what makes up Love, therefore the aspects of Love, is what love is.
Round 3
Pro
#5
A Letter for Con
My respected opponent, YouFound_Lxam:
I foresee this debate not really going anywhere
We are both amateur debaters and beginners at best. You and I were fortunate to have debated one another instead of a much more experienced competitor. There are flaws within each of our arguments, and they were poorly constructed considering formality and style. I believe to effectively combat with one another under this topic is above both of our skill level. Comments by AWonderingPhilosopher and Intelligence_06 have highlighted clear faults contained in all parts of the debate.
The Framework
One of the biggest problems is that I did not issue a full framework at the beginning. That is my responsibility as the Instigator. Not to mention a lack of "agreed upon" definitions and preset understandings. We were left to draw straws as what to actually discuss.
My proposition
Since this topic is out of our league, I propose we end the debate now. We both walk away and forfeit. After reading the rules of debateart.com found in the Help Center, I came across a way for us to safely conclude this debate without any losses. Under the Debates section in the Debates Editing/Deletion:
"...moderators can delete debates by mutual consent of the contestants..."
Which means, if we both agree to discontinue, this debate will cease via the moderators.
Do you agree to a mutual forfeit?
No one has to take the fall. We can end now if you like. Let me know your choice.
Sources:
Help Center - https://info.debateart.com/help/debates
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
mutually agreed upon forfeiture, i award no points to either side.
However, i feel neither side accurately told us what love is. one said love is caring for the necessity of others. the other said freewill.
neither provided sufficent arguement for burden of proof as they debated descriptions and applications.
i will add my point of view.
there are many types of love, but each love has a nature, a certain way of acting.
one could say love is how the soul/spirit expresses its self.
however. both of you were referring to God's love, agape.
which is God. scripture declares God is love.
if either of you sufficiently proved How God is love, you would have met the burden of proof in my eyes.
but ONLY because you were referring to scripture and GOD'S love.
if you had not used scripture, i would have been forced to look at arguements dictating it as either
freewill
caring for the necessity of others.
If I vote as a tie, is that good or bad for the "mutual forfeit"?
Mutual forfeit has been agreed upon
This argument reads spiritual vibes. It’s more like my opinion vs your opinion instead of which is objectively more true.
Skipper presents better arguments and established his version with more conviction.
Liam’s “rebuttals” only bring the convo to an impasse.
1.)
a.) "No person would be able to love without free will. Love can't be love, unless someone is choosing to love. " this is a bold claim to make due to free will and
its nature still being debated amongst scholars to this very day, a lot more premises would need to be provided to back such a claim.
b.) " Love can't be love, unless someone is choosing to love" if this were true, how then can sayings such as "love at first sight" or "I couldn't help falling in
love" exist?
2.)
a.) "Tell me, if you truly love someone, then you would do anything for them correct? And Love contains doing, nice things for others perse. " you are making
the same mistake your opponent made in regard to mistaking correlation for cause, acts of wickedness can be done under the banner of love,
My first issue with your opening argument, the topic of this debate is "What Is Love?" not "what does the bible say love is ?" meaning for you to use the bible as a referencing point you would either have to
1.) mutually agree that the bible can be used as a referencing point
or
2.) establish premises showing why the bible can be used as a referencing point
without either of those, any premises provided referring to the bible simply hold no weight, what if your opponent is not a believer of the bible?
My second issue with your opening argument has been stated by your opponent which is the fact that you describe things attributed to love, however, that would be mistaking correlation with cause to assume because those things usually accompany love they are love or attributes that can be used to describe love, further premises showing such a relationship would be needed.
What is your point?
You specifically said "WHAT is love", meaning there could be infinitely many sides as human knowledge goes.
"We don't know your view here."
I do not know my competitors view either. We start on equal ground
Love=Free Will
"What is love? You choose your side and belief of the topic."
This is like picking a blind box. We don't know your view here. You are vaguely setting a trap, even.
Baby don't hurt me