Debate suggestion by Paranoid Android...

Does True Love exist?

Is there the one special person, the Mr or Mrs Right, that we are just destined to be with. Or is love nothing more than a reaction, chemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate.

This will be a shorter debate then normal with an introduction from each participant, 4 bodily posts and a conclusion.

Looking for 1 participant.

I'll debate that true love does exist.

Fabulous!

Yelekiah will be debating that true love does exist.

Looking for one more person to debate against Yelekiah.

I would be willing to debate that love does not exist, but I have little time except for the weekends in which to give the time and attention necessary for a formal debate. If this is acceptable, I would be like to take the Against position.

Yes Aquatus1 this is perfectly acceptable as:
i) You have told us in advance.
ii) The time in between weekends is within the 7 day time limit anyway.

Welcome aboard!

Okay so this is going to be an interesting debate!

Yelekiahwill debate that true love does exist.
Aquatus1 will debate that true love does not exist.

This will be a 1v1 formal debate.
An Introduction, 4 bodily posts and a conclusion from each participant. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated.

Please be aware that:

There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.

This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself or Aztec know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.

If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for upto 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.

Good Luck, Lottie.

Introduction

It is difficult to quantify something that is "intangible". Love, for example, tends to fall under this category. However, just because it has a seemingly "intangible" nature, does not mean that it does not exist.

Mimicry
Love, along with other emotions, is a product of the brain. However, contrary to popular belief, it is not equivalent to consuming large quantities of chocolate. The intake of aphrodisiacs such as chocolate or bananas merely mimic the feeling of love, and are not love itself.

Is There Such Thing as a Mr. or Ms. Right?
Many people openly and consciously yearn for the right person. Is the notion of a Mr. or Ms. Right just a self-limiting fantasy? Or do soul mates really exist?
Soul mates transcend infatuation (real love should not be confused with this). Infatuation tends to fizzle, and researchers often liken it to temporary insanity. Real love, on the other hand, has solidarity due to its unconditional nature.

Overcoming the Odds
It is implied that true love can grow stronger through the resolution of difficulties within a relationship.

Does Love Affect Reality?
There is evidence that thoughts and emotions, such as love, not only have a place in the physical world, but they also affect it.

"Love? Love...Above all things I believe in Love. Love is like Oxygen. Love is a Many Splendored Thing, Love lifts us up where we belong, All You need is Love!"

With apologies to the scriptwriters of the Moulin Rouge and the many famous singers that have proclaimed love through time.

Love is truly an incredible, intangible force of nature. There are few who would even call into question its awesome power, its sheer purity, its ability to overcome the most severe challenges to the human spirit. Our songs, our stories, our movies, all pay tribute to this incredible, basic, elemental force.

And yet...

Does such a thing as Love exist, as an actual force? Is the emotion we know of as Love something that can go beyond the physical boundries of our bodies and affect the world around us? Can it find for us a soul-mate, one who is so compatible with us that not only can we live with them for the rest of our lives, but indeed that we would be hard-pressed to live without them?

Is Love something more than an emotion?

The answer, simply put, is No. Love is another one of the many emotions created within the human mind through the complex interactions of naturally created chemicals. Like all emotions, it can be replicated, imitated, duped, and even mistaken for something that it is not. Like all other physical emotions, it is poorly understood and impossible to predict. It cannot affect the world around us, no more than happiness can; it will certainly affect our perception of it, and perhaps even in a roundabout way our behaviour might then affect the world, but it is not Love itself behind the actions.

The glory of Love is a fable, changing throughout history, dependant on what the local culture thinks is Love. It is a happy myth willingly subscribed to by many adults. It is, at best, an explanation for a simple, natural, chemical phenomena that did not have an explanation, and that therefore required one to be made up. In short, Love is a faith-based belief, existing only if the individual wishes it to be so, and impossible to determine objectively by anyone, including the person it affects.

It this debate, I will show exactly how all the facets we normally think of as Romantic Love are really nothing more than the expected outcome of Physical Love. I will show how Love itself has changed in definition throughout time and how the one thing that has remained consistant has been the physical aspect of it. At the end of this debate, I call upon the judges to ask themselves the final questions: Is Love a power unto itself, perhaps capable of being personified by a Greek Goddess, or is Love a wonderful myth created to explain unknown chemical reactions?

I wish the best of luck to my opponent, and look forward to his first post.

Post 1-Mimicry


Thank you. I wish you the best of luck as well.


I'll argue that it seems intagible. However, the truth is that you are incorrect. Love does in fact have an effect on the physical world, which I will show further down the line in the debate.



Some aphrodisiacs contain estrogenic compounds. These often induce similar effects to testosterone. For centuries, aphrodisiacs were taken due to the stimulation of the sex drive, which was thought to boost fertility. Many of them naturally increase the blood flow and promote circulation.




For many years, chocolate has been associated with love and romance. Originally it was discovered in South America, and was often considered the "food of the gods".


source

Nevertheless, sexual desire and lust are not the same as love and compassion. They are two separate experiences altogether. Real love implies that it has the ability to transcend lust. For instance, there is the existence of the love between a mother and child. Sexual desire needs no attachment to this type of affiliation. Nor is it a necessity (it may be a want) for any relationship where unconditional love is the foundation.

Our culture has taught us that sex and love are one in the same. Based on my previous examples, this has no real validity. Sex is the completion of the binding of two people. It is an act, and should not be confused with an emotion, such as love. So the consumption of chocolate which can produce euphoria, etc. are not real emotions. It is a mere predecessor to a false state of mind, which completely contradicts the term true love in the sense that the former is an ersatz for it.

It is all well and good to claim that something is not "True" Love. One can present several hundred examples where what was thought to be Love turns out to be less than, and all one needs to do to absolve Love of any fault is merely to claim "Oh, but that wasn't True Love! True Love isn't like that!"

Sometimes you gotta say the baby's ugly. Personal desire can mask a multitude of errors, but when it ultimately comes down to objective evidence, what we think of as Love is nothing grander or any more mystical than any other emotion in the human repetoir, as laden with faults and errors as Happiness, Sadness, Jealousy, or Comfort.

So, rather than dwelling on what Love isn't, what actually is Love? Well, it depends largely on the situation. Love can best be defined as an instinctual set of social reactions designed for the purpose of providing the basic necessities of life needed to both survive and to pass on the next generation. A mother's love for her child involves a desire to see the child become strong enough to survive in the society it is in, as well as a rather ferocious protective instinct for her next gen product. A man's love for his wife involves the need of a successful child-bearer, a person capable of rearing children correctly, and a person with whom the likelyhood of multiple births is high. Either way, the purpose is to see to it that the genetic material survives long enough to procreate in its own turn. Now, of course, humanity has this thing called Culture, and it, quite often, overrides the basic instinctual desires, but instinct is never erased, and its power can still be felt in the subtle manner in which it guides all our social interactions. Practically every aspect of inter-gender dynamics is based and predicated on whether or not procreation can be successfully achieved or facilitated. We just tend to not notice it.

Our bodies do a great many things without our noticing it. The complex chemical interactions that make up the human emotions are merely a drop in the bucket. Is the happiness that is gained from consuming a piece of chocolate any different that the happiness from seeing a small child opening a present? Not at all. As a social species, we give different meanings and values to each act, but when all is said and done, that feeling of happiness is nothing more than a given amount of chemical X being released at the right moment, whether by a piece of chocolate or by the human mind. It is the same with Love. It is a simple chemical release, one which is intimately tied to our instinctual sexual function, but which we have taken and expanded into an entire philosophical and psychological veneer that has all but masked the root cause.

We like to think that emotions are universal, but emotions are, ultimately, a result of what a given society considers to be good and bad. What one society considers to be "True" Love is not necessarily what another society considers True Love. In the tales of Mideval England, the Truest Love was the Hidden Love, the love that a knight might have for the King's wife, but that could never be spoken out of honor. The idea of one suffering for love was praised, and indeed, one of the greatest tragedies of literature is the violation of this ideal by Guienevere and Lancelor finally coming together in an act that would be praised in our modern society, but which came close to destroying Camelot in theirs. This shows how all the sentiment, all the fantasy, all the decoration that we speak of when we proclaim the glory of love, is nothing more than a cultural shell, and that the only reality is what lies at the base of the actions, which is ultimately nothing more than the chemical interactions of the mind.

Post 2-Is There Such Thing as a Mr. or Ms. Right?

And just as easily one can present hundreds of examples of true love throughout history.

This is irrelevant.

Again, irrelevant because you are not comparing it to true love. A child opening a present is correlated to joy of receiving an object, not soul love for another human being.

Incorrect. It is similar and my previous post displays that. It produces a similar feeling, however, it is not the feeling itself.

And again, incorrect. It is only partly cultural, not wholly. There are exceptions to this statement you just made, which I will elaborate on shortly.


According to Greek mythology, our ancestors originally had two heads and four arms, until they angered the gods and were split in two, condemning humans to a lifelong search for their soul mates. Perhaps this is why so many of us are looking for someone to make us feel complete.

Soul mate, in my opinion, is an overused cliche. To me it does not have to be a relationship that is romantic in origin. However, I'll briefly use the popular definition (Ms. Right for example) to avoid confusion.

A soul mate, or Mr. or Ms. Right, is not perfect. The term, unfortunately, is based on cultural ideals. There is a misconception that these individuals are *perfect* which is not the case. The truth is that no one is.
Mr. or Ms. Right is the person that has a decent mix of qualities that one desires, and appreciates in their partner. If one searched for perfection, they are apt to find only frustration. A soul mate is someone who is compatible to you. Having a soul mate is not love itself, it is the potential for true love. It is the product of a mutual bond.

However, true love between real soul mates (separate definition), is soul love. This is a unique form of expression where the love is connected at the heart chakras.** It is believed by many that soul mates are splits of a single soul. When we come into contact with these individuals, we no longer feel broken or lost. We feel "complete" because we have found a portion of our own soulular essence.

"Love refers to the emotional body - more specifically the heart chakra - the soul - which we are here to heal...Our soul separates from its polar opposite when we come into physical form. It spends its lifetimes seeking love and trying the heal the pain of that separation - until soul reunions is achieved."
source1

I can actually relate because I have met several of my soul mates. My mother is one, and she has given me spiritual information before she passed. My roommate (and coworker) is another. So is my girlfriend. In fact what I have written down about her after spending time with her, reflects what many have concluded on soul relationships. These are excerpts from my journal.
"In the time that we've been together, I have felt both spiritually awakened and fulfilled. She somehow completes me. And I don't feel like I'll ever be in need."
"I think compassion is what made this beautiful relationship come about. Compassion and openness."
-19.07.04
I've observed that she has changed me for the better. Infatuation does not do this. It has been concluded many times over by researchers, that infatuation can be destructive due to it's inconstant nature.

According to a 1990 study in Italy, Italian students claiming that they were "infatuated" were found to have serotonin levels 40% lower than their peers. Low levels of the neuro-transmitter 'serotonin' is often associated with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or OCD.
source2
Contrary wise, my love that I share with my soul mate has brought light into my life. I've quit many of my destructive habits and have learned to accept other people, despite innate differences. I've also grown spiritually after having met her.

So again, what is true love?
One of the best answers was in Emily Bronte's *Wuthering Heights. I'll quote the heroine Catherine, "I love him...not because he's handsome, but because he's more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same... My great thought in living is himself. If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn to a mighty stranger; I should not seem a part of it...Time will not change it. My love for him resembles the eternal rocks beneath; a source of little visible delight, but necessary. I AM him! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, anymore than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
That's the definition of true love - eternal soul mates whose existence are so entwined that death and time cannot alter the love that they share. If you love someone, and both of you feel as deeply about each other as the description above, that's definitely true love.

*Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte

Of course one can, but the thing of it is that there is no way to tell that they are True Love until after the fact. It is a circular argument:

"True Love exists and here is the evidence of people who remained together."
"But I have here evidence of people who didn't stay together..."
"That's not True Love."

This is not a definition of True Love. One cannot define something by what it is not if one is trying to show that it does actually exist.



Irrelevant? It's the entire point of debate! The question in discussion here is whether Love is some sort of metaphysical force or if it simply a biological impulse.

The simple fact of the matter is that everything that people claim as "True Love" can also be explained in terms of biological instinct, i.e. the impulse to pass on one's genetic information. This is extremely important here, so pay close attention: If there is no way to definitely classify a behaviour in a metaphysical manner (such as True Love), but there is a manner is which to classify it from a biological standpoint (such as the impulse to procreate), then the logical conclusion is that True Love does not exist. True love is nothing more than a cultural fable woven around a biological phenomena, in the same way that the ancient Greeks used a flaming chariot riding through the heavens to explain the passing of the sun through the sky.



In this example, I showed how love, having already been established as an emotion like any other (since it cannot be defined any differently) must therefore, by definition, also behave like other emotions. If an emotion like happiness can be interpreted through social context (in pretty much the exact manner which you did) then Love can also be interpreted through cultural context.

If you would like an example using Love specifically, then we can do that as well. Is the love between a man and his son different than the love between a man and his wife? If you are speaking in terms of biology, no, not at all. It is the exact same chemicals that are producing the same feelings of protection for the son and the wife in the man's mind. The only difference is the interpretation of that love within society; the body is feeling the same thing regardless.



And this is based on what? What, exactly, is the 'feeling' itself? Are you capable of coming up with a definition of Love that can be agreed upon by all cultures? I think not. Love is entirely too variable. What is universal? Human chemistry. How then, do we define Love? We define it through the elements that are universal, not through the elements that vary depending on culture.

I have said it before, and I will likely say it again: You cannot define something by what it isn't. Just as I said in the begining of my first post, that is nothing more than a circular argument.



Alternatively, the search for what the human psyche calls a soulmate (which is a belief rooted in subjective desire) is instead nothing more than the mind's interpretation of the biological search for a succesful breeding partner. One looks for a mate with known qualities that will lead to a successful union. In the same way that animals decide on their mates, so do humans; by reviewing and evaluating the qualities that one can observe. Humans can call it 'bonding' all they want. In animals, we refer to it as a mating dance.



This is a prime example of how True Love can only exist when filtered through the human belief system. Not only does the definition of True Love change within cultures and social structures, it even changes within specific belief systems! To some, a soulmate has to do with heart chakras and split souls coming together. To others, soulmates are previous lovers seperated by death and time. What we have here, essentially, is an extremely elaborate definition of something which has yet to be shown to exist. Sure, IF soulmates exist, IF heart chakras exist, IF the purpose is to reunite split souls (IF souls exist), then MAYBE this is an explanation that explains how they work together.

All we have to do now is find a way to define these things that doesn't change depending on which culture you are in. If the definitions keep changing, but the root chemical cause do not, then the most correct definition of the phenomena is not going to be the cultural description; it is going to be the chemical reaction that causes the behavior to occur.



Yes, strangely enough, this is very relevant, for precisely the reason I gave before. There is no way to tell if this is True Love except as seen through the personal filter. If, next week, his girlfriend suddenly, for whatever reason, betrayed her mate in whatever fashion, the most friends could offer would be "That wasn't True Love. It just felt like it." and proceed to take him to a bar. Why would this hypothetical situation be relevant? Simply because, once again, we have a prime example of how something cannot be definitively defined as what it isn't, but rather why it needs to be defined as what it is. Whether your girlfriend is truly your soulmate or whether you simply think (i.e. "feels like", "seems like") she is, the root cause of what you are calling True Love or what might be a temporary tryst is still the exact same chemical reaction.



No. That is the definition of True Love according to Bronte. To Shakespeare, it was almost a sad ailmentLove is a smoke made with the fume of sighs. Being purged, a fire sparkling in lovers' eyes. Being vexed, a sea nourished with lovers' tears. What is it else? A madness most discreet, a choking gall and a preserving sweet.. To Thomas Carlyle, it was a madness, Love is not altogether a delirium, yet it has many points in common therewith. To Kahlil Gibran, it depended on the other persons feelings. If you love somebody, let them go, for if they return, they were always yours. And if they don't, they never were.

Simply put, 100 people will get you 100 different definitions of True Love. 100 bodies, however, will get you 100 identical chemical reactions.

Post 3-Overcoming the Odds

So then you agreed with me that true love exists. Thank you.
I think so too.

Yes, irrelevant. Reread that portion of your post. You were discussing *procreation*. Think about a mother loving her daughter. They are soul mates. I can't imagine that everyone in this type of relationship desires to procreate.

Actually the Greek explanation would conflict with the scientific (biological phenomenon) one. The Greeks used myth to explain what occurred in nature (my brief mention of the Greeks was an an intro, not the entire focus of my point of soul mates).

Incorrect. Happiness is a product of love. It is not love itself. Love to our human perception is a feeling. When in actuality love is our spiritual energy in it's highest form. Feelings of well being are only the effects of love. So happiness and love are not exactly comparable. Hopefully, this quote below will you give you more insight as to my meaning.
"Desire for love is infinite. It transcends time and space because it's connected to the spirit world.
Because of false love, humankind lost freedom. Once we restore our original nature and original love, everything looks beautiful."
-Excerpts from the Midnight Speech, January 1, 1995
Reverend Sun Myung Moon

I'll assume that you skipped over my first post where I discussed chemicals. So I'll post something similar for you to ingest it.
"PEA or phenylethylamine is a chemical that speeds up the flow of information between nerve cells. Also, involved in chemistry are dopamine and norepinephrine, chemical cousins of amphetamines. Dopamine makes us feel good and norepinephrine stimulates the production of adrenaline. It makes our heart race! These three chemicals combine to give us infatuation..."
source1
Hopefully you see the distinction. You mentioned a mother and child-that sort of love. Is the mother infatuated with the child? No.
These chemicals are only feelings of well-being and euphoria. Again, they are not love itself. Look at my above definition.

I'm guessing you missed my post on serotonin in association with infatuation as well. The serotonin levels go down for some. How is it universal if everyone is experiencing a different form of infatuation? While love on the other hand is a constant.

Sure you can.
Undeniable: not deniable

And explain those couples that have loving relationships without sex.

What a poor friend that would be. This hardly speaks for all friends.

Correct, yet also the *same* definition for true love. The love between two like souls. Reread that carefully. "I AM him..." This is in reference to real soul mates. And notice what she says close to the beginning of the quote.
"I love him...not because he's handsome, but because he's more myself than I am."
Again, like souls. True love is often tempered by time. This form of love does not see size, color, or even age.
There is a distinction between infatuation and soul love.
"In most cases we think: this is true love, when in fact it’s not. But than if this ain’t love than what it is? There are plenty of things that we confuse with love.
It could be just the basic instinct. The feelings can be passionate and crazy, but in fact both people may want only sex. And after it all the misunderstanding starts, and once infatuated lovers will find out that they have nothing in common and sometimes they don't even know what to talk with each other."
source2
True love is not bound to flesh. Appearances in this instance, should not be the number one priority.
If your partner were to gain weight, and you left them because of this, one could easily assume that you were not experiencing true love.
Real love is not confined to the terrestrial or the material. It is a connection between two hearts, that are in total acceptance of one another. The test of true love is overcoming obstacles, such as this.
True love is understanding, which is necessary to evolve in a relationship, despite the hardships.
"A distinction must be made between "falling in love" and "being in love" or feeling love in general. Simply defined, falling in love is part of the initial stage of a relationship, in which we feel strong passionate feelings of attraction, both emotional and physical, to another person. If we are fortunate, this stage leads to being in love, a deeper devotion and affection, which may develop and deepen over time. Feeling love is much like being in love. However, we can feel love for someone who is not a romantic partner; in fact, we more often feel love without being "in love." We frequently extend the more general kind of love to relatives, friends, even pets"
-source1
The problem with infatuation is that people tend to forsake their own character in order to impress the object of their affection (or I should say "obsession"). This negates the term "true love", if you are not being yourself and instead are busy trying to be someone else.

Cute.

I do not agree with you that True Love Exists. I agree with you that one can present hundreds of examples of succesful relationships, and I say that one can present just as many of unsuccessful relationships. The point of this is that one cannot define True Love as everything that does not support it. You cannot define True Love in terms of relationships, and not take into account the relationships that do not result in True Love merely by dismissing them as not being True Love. You cannot say "These examples are evidence of True Love because they worked, and these are not because they didn't.



They don't need to. The child is the result of procreation. The desire within the mother is to ensure the succesful passing on of her genetic material through her daughter. With her husband or lover, the mother's desire would be to procreate, but with her offspring, her desire is to make the procreation worthwhile by ensuring the product of the procreation ends up successful.



Yes, that's fine, but the point is that True Love is nothing more than a subconscious story, than a decorative shell, for a natural phenomena, in the same way that the story of the chariot is a decorative shell for the natural phenomena which results in the apparent movement of the sun.



And, yet again, this is merely your interpretation (and possible that of the Reverend Moon) of what True Love is. It is nothing more than a definition which changes, yet again, depending on who you talk to. It is a story, a decorative shell, a different I-Pod cover, designed to appeal to the owner. The core, the I-Pod, does not change, in the exact same manner that the chemical root cause of what you are referring to as love does not change.



No, I caught your posts concerning chemicals. The thing of it is though, that you are claiming that what these chemicals are doing isn't True Love. I am claiming that it is. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...

Look, you feel a certain way when you are in love. You claim that you are in love, and you swear that this is True Love because you feel it in your very soul. Whether this relationship will be successful or whether it will fail, you still feel the exact same way. You have absolutely no way to tell if what you are feeling is true love because, according to you, it would only be true love if the relationship is successful, and would not be true love if the relationship wasn't successful.

But we have already established that defining something as what it isn't is not a valid way of defining something. If this definition is not valid, then what do we have left? The only thing we have left is the feeling itself, and the feeling itself is the same, regardless as to how the relationship ended. The natural conclusion, then, is that there is a single biological reaction, and that this reaction is then translated as either true love or not depending not on what currently exists, but rather on how it ends. In other words, the definition does not exist until the natural reaction runs its course. If the definition is temporary, but the reaction is consistent, then the phenomena must be explained with the constant cause, not the subjective explanation.



Again, cute.



Simple. One subconsciously chooses a mate with whom one believes one would have the greatest chance of passing on the genes. If one chooses to pass on offing the jeans (pun intended), that is up to the individual; instinct can only go so far.



**Shrugs**



According to who? Everyone has their own definition of True Love. To some somewhat selfish souls, True Love means that they are Happy. To others, it means that both are happy. Why are they wrong and you right? Their relationships, in many ways, can be regarded just as successful as anything you define. Are we to regard a one sided love as not "True Love" merely because you claim that your definition of it is correct? Is your opinion in some way inherently more correct than any other's?

If True Love cannot be definitively defined through subjective opinion, then it can only be defined through objective evidence.



Certainly. Infatuation is a physical phenomena. Soul Love is a matter of belief concerning its presence, and indeed, even its existance.

Again, we keep coming down to the same point. You continually define Love in subjective terms. That's fine, in and of itself, however you cannot presume to think that all cultures share your same opinion. If it is not the manner in which we express the feeling of love which is universal, then that cannot be the definition of Love. If there is no definition of True Love that all cultures can agree on, then it can only be concluded that the concept of True Love does not exist as a unique entity, only as a romaticized notion. If that is the case, then the only means left to define love is through the universal chemical reactions found in anyone who claims to have these feelinsg.

True Love, SoulMate, Chakras, all these are aspects of a belief system designed to explain a natural phenomena. The source of all these beliefs are the chemical reactions within the body. We do not really think about it, because the fable of love is so deeply entrenched in our culture that we never think about the root cause, but when all is said and done, a shell is just a shell, and the root cause of Love is the exact same as the root cause of Happiness. Chemical intereactions within the body and mind do not mimic love; chemical interactions are love. How we justify who we act out these reactions with is nothing more than our romantic explanation for a physical, instinctual reaction.

Post 4-Does Love Affect Reality?

If that is the case, what you do is just say that. Within the parameters of true love are successful relationships. In that sense, you agree with me.

However there are individuals in incestuous relationships. Of course it is not necessary, but it does happen unfortunately.

The "interpretation" however, is correct, which I will get into shortly.

Your claim alone technically agrees with me <----not trying to be cute, because I know you hate that. But you *just* said that they were true love. And given that the chemicals are real, by that logic, true love exists.

No we haven't. Dispute that the word "undeniable" does not mean "not deniable"

Incorrect. That's more closely related to science, however, it is the indidual that chooses the mate. You have the ability to break up with someone. Your subconscious is not stopping you.

So you agree with me? Because it's true. It doesn't.

Sure everyone has their own definition, however, a lot of those definitions bear similarities. And with this alone we can choose to compare the data, and find a common definition that can be appropriate for everyone.

again, incorrect. It even says in my source that it mimics love!! They produce feelings similar to love. Some of these feelings however, are merely a product of love.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

Dr. Masaru Emoto has made astonishing discoveries about thoughts and music as vibrations (and their effects). Based on his experiments in Japan, there is sufficient evidence that thoughts and feelings, such as love, affect physical reality.
His experiments were created by producing focused intentions through written and spoken words, and music, using water as a medium. The effect was the water's ability to "change its expression".
This is the water after the feelings "You Make Me Sick"

Here are the feelings of "Love"

Feel free to read his book, the Hidden Messages in Water


"Dr. Masaru Emoto was born in Japan and is a graduate of the Yokohama Municipal University and the Open International University as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine. His photographs were first featured in his self-published books Messages from Water 1 and 2.....
Essentially, Dr. Emoto captured water's 'expressions.' He developed a technique using a very powerful microscope in a very cold room along with high-speed photography, to photograph newly formed crystals of frozen water samples. Not all water samples crystallize however. Water samples from extremely polluted rivers directly seem to express the 'state' the water is in..."
"If I were to draw a circle, the vibration of a circle would be created. Drawing a cross would create the vibration of a cross. So if I write the letters L O V E, then these letters put out the vibration of love. Water can be imprinted with these vibrations. Beautiful words have beautiful, clear vibrations. But negative words put out ugly, incoherent vibrations which do not form clusters. Language is not something artificial, but rather is something that exists naturally. I believe that language is created by nature."
-Dr. Emoto
source1
source2

Studies conducted at the Institute for HeartMath in Boulder Creek, California, confirm the health-improving and life-affirming effects of love on the human body. By studying the heart's rhythms, researchers there have discovered that when we feel love, or any positive emotion such as compassion, caring, or gratitude, the heart sends messages to the brain and secretes hormones that positively affect our health.

""When we get stressed out or mad or worried, the bottom line is that the heart's rhythmic beating pattern becomes very incoherent, and that has the effect of inhibiting the brain's cortex," McCraty explains. "When we feel emotions like love and appreciation the heart switches into a very rhythmic, coherent, beating pattern that facilitates cortical function." These coherent heart rhythms, he says, cause an "inner synchronization" of the systems in our body, which then affects how we think, function, and fight off disease."

"Dean Ornish, M.D., has served as a pioneer in this work. In his book,*Love and Survival, the Scientific Basis for the Healing Power of Intimacy he reports on many such studies. For example, he helped conduct a study at Yale that involved 119 men and 40 women undergoing coronary angiography. Those who felt the most loved and supported had substantially less blockages in their heart arteries than the other subjects. In a related study, researchers looked at almost 10 thousand married men with no prior history of angina. These men had high levels of risk factors, such as elevated cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, and electrocardiogram abnormalities. Those who felt their wives did not show them love experienced almost twice as much angina as the first group, who felt their wives did show them love.

"Social ties with friends, family, workers, and community that involve love and intimacy of any type also may help protect against infectious diseases. In a study of 276 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 55, all participants received nasal drops containing rhinovirus, which causes the common cold. Researchers assessed subjects on 12 types of relationships, including relationship with spouse, parents, parents-in-law, children and other close family members, neighbors, friends, co-workers schoolmates, and member of various groups. They scored a point for each type of relationship if they spoke to a person in that category at least once every two weeks. While almost all of the people exposed to the cold virus were infected, not everyone developed the signs and symptoms of a cold. The participants who reported only one to three types of relationships had more than four times the risk of developing a cold than those reporting six or more types of relationships.
"'When you feel loved, nurtured, cared for, supported, and intimate, you are much more likely to be happier and healthier. You have a much lower risk of getting sick and, if you do, a much greater chance of surviving,' Ornish concludes in his book. "
source3

This is evidence that love, although rarely viewed as a tangible substance, is very real. It leaves a beneficial impression on the overall health of a human being, and it is also a vibration that affects the physical world.

*Love and Survival, the Scientific Basis for the Healing Power of Intimacy, Dean Ornish, M.D.

Oy vey...You said I agreed that True Love exists, and I do not agree that True Love, as you define it, exists. Is that clear enough for you?



Well, yes...it is inevitable that, in an emotion that is the result of a chemical interaction that is caused by a desire to procreate, one mistakes one impulse for another. Mistaking emotions is simply the result of the same basic chemical reaction being interpreted in different fashions.



I hope so. Up to this point, I have only seen the same thing; you giving your definition and claiming that it is the correct one. I haven't yet seen why an alternative definition of True Love, for instance that of Selfish Love, like the one I gave, couldn't also be considered a valid definition. Simply saying that you disagree with it isn't quite enough.



For heaven's sake, this is becoming more an exercise in sematics than a debate.

True Love, as defined in the subjective, romantiziced version you are promoting, does not exist as anything other than a personal opinion (possibly one shared by many, but a personal opinion nonetheless, and not a universal one). What I claim that what you call True Love is not what you describe, but rather the chemical reactions that produce the feelings. In other words, True Love has nothing to do with Soulmate and Chakras; it has to do with chemicals. True Love can be definitively defined as a chemical reaction; it cannot be definitively defined through subjective opinion.



Are you serious?

To define something is to provide a clear explanation for the term. That means defining the root of the word. By saying "Not Deniable", you have not explained any of the terms. All you have done is remove the prefix (un-) from the word. At most, all we could say was that you explained that the prefix was a negative. We still do not have an explanation for the root word "deniable".



Nothing that you say conflicts with what I just said. You choose a mate subconsciously based on what you can get out of it (genetically speaking). If you later decide that it isn't working out, you break up (like I said, instinct only goes so far). It might be because you subconsciously found him unsuitable as a mate, it might be because you consciously decided they were a jerk.



I just don't find it relevant to the debate.



Like I said, the fable of love is deeply rooted into our culture. Of course all sources are going to say the emotions are similar to love. If they said the emotions were love, they would have hundreds of people claiming they were wrong because the feelings they felt did ot match up what they defined as love. Again, love is being defined subjectively, not objectively.



Unfortunately, Dr Masaru Emoto has elected to not publish his findings in scientific journals, and has openly admited to not using double-blind procedures in his experiments. For someone who made these discoveries seven years ago, the utter lack of peer reviewed data, particularly when compared with the many different 'Hado' schools and 'Water Reaserch' sites funded by his followers, his actions seem less scientific and more spiritual. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but again, a scientist who does not back up his claims is presenting nothing more than his personal opinion.

Absolutely brimming over with wrongability? Only if one chooses to follow individual's claims, rather than factual evidence.

A reminder that your next posts will be a conclusion.

Conclusion

Yes, however, either way you look at it, you are agreeing that it exists. Which contradicts with your initial post that it didn't.

No, I've stated earlier that many definitions have a theme so that they are comparable. And when you compare the data, you can come up with a conclusive universal definition of what love is.

Selfish as in...self love? In that sense it would agree with the love of a soul mate, because essentially you are loving a part of yourself.

No I said soul mate does NOT have to be romantic in origin. That was in my second post, and I am not promoting a *romanticized* version.

I see you doing that here:

According to the book Kundalini and the Chakras by Genevieve Lewis Paulson, it does.
When the heart chakra is open toward a soul mate, the feeling of love permeates the kundalini.

Yes.

But it is still defined is it not? Because it's in the dictionary. Therefore, defined, which again, conflicts with what you said.

But you *consciously* decide to break up with someone.

You did bring it up though. I was just responding.

This doesn't take away any validity to his experiments. Just because he's a very spiritual individual does not mean that he doesn't take the science seriously. I suggest you read his book.
Furthermore, other scientists and scholars find his studies to be valid.
"Half of the earth is water; our body is three-quarters water. Water represents the interface between the 4th dimension in which we live and the 5th dimensional sphere of our soul. Many studies have shown subtle effects of healers upon hydrogen bonding and infrared absorption of water. None of these scientific studies can compare with the beauty and clear messages shown by Dr. Emoto's elegant work. The impact of thought and beauty has never before been demonstrated so well."
C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D.
(Founding President, American Holistic Medical Association
President. Holos University Graduate Seminary
Author of 295 publications, including Sacred Healing)

Also, what I find fascinating is that you didn't dispute Love and Survival, the Scientific Basis for the Healing Power of Intimacy, by Dean Ornish, M.D. I'm going to assume that you thought that he had validity.
Because he showed plenty of factual evidence, spirituality aside.

Perhaps this excerpt of the letter of Paul of to Corinthians (Chapter 13) can give insight to what true love really is.
"4 Love is patient,
is full of goodness ;
love has no envy,
has no pride,
5 Love is honest,
does not look for its interest,
does not irritate,
does not think of badness,
6 it does not have joy in injustice,
but of truth,
7 it excuses all,
believes all,
hopes all,
support all.
8 Love will never end..."
True love is patient because it can be tempered by time. Love is full of goodness because when there is total love, there is no room for hate. Love has no envy because unlike infatuation, love cannot "see" race, creed, sex, age. It is the highest form of spiritual expression. And to human perception, births joy and feelings of well-being, according to Dr. Ornish. Love will never end, because it transcends time, from back to the original soul, prior to the split (resulting in soul mates).
I have previously shown many times over that the intake of aphrodisiacs only mimic the feeling of love (they are not love itself). In fact, more than one of my sources say the same thing on phenylethylamine and serotonin.
"Certainly the data would suggest that endorphins are involved" when we feel love. Endorphins are known not only to create a positive, bliss-like feeling -- which we definitely associate with love."
-Candace Pert, Ph.D., research professor at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and author of Molecules of Emotion, Why You Feel the Way You Do (Scribner, 1997)
Again, these feelings are associated with love. They are not love itself, only a mere product, as I have pointed out earlier.
It cannot be disputed that there is a Mr. or Ms. Right, because probability dictates that there are people out there in the world that are compatible to you. The loving bond that you share with these individuals, have a literal affect on your health, according to the many studies.
Love is a positive high frequency that can literally heal and help many to overcome obstacles. To watch true love between two soul mates, is like watching a miracle. With true love, you do not have to forsake your character, because unconditional love does not judge. And it is as real a substance as the person that you love unconditionally.

The notion of True Love as a metaphysical force is a powerful and subtle one. At its very core, it represents a synergistic manifestation of something that we are quite unable to pin down. When all is said and done, the only way most people can define True Love is with Faith. "This is True Love."

Unfortunately, too many times, what was once thought to be True Love turns out to be temporary. To call such a thing an infatuation would be premature. As my opponent pointed out, plenty of couples have proclaimed their undying love with each other, yet not succumbed to physical passion, the basis for infatuation. Similarly, many couples who have proclaimed this exact same emotion have proceeded to a happy life. No, the simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible to define what True Love is in terms of what a person thinks of it when they are throughly immersed in the feeling; it is subjectivity at its best! If True Love cannot be defined by what the people are feeling until such time as they no longer feel it, then True Love must have some other means to be defined.

The existance of other forms of love complicates the issue. The love between a husband and wife and the love between parents and child are still defined vaguely, though confidently, as love, but again, defining them becomes a matter of personal opinion. What one culture considers love is entirely different than what another culture considers love. We have, then, a situation in which we can not define love throught the physical expression of it either. Again, it becomes subjective. Everyone agrees that it is love, but no one can decide exactly what it is.

Ultimately, there is only one thing that is universal among all humanity. Not actions, not feelings, not reactions, no, the only thing that is common to all these acts that we refer to as love is the same chemical reactions that occur to cause them. Like all the other emotions in the human body, they are the product of increasing or decreasing amounts of different elements. They are activated by the body's natural instinct to pass on genetic information, and can all be untimately be traced down to that objective.

A man finds a women who shares all the qualities he deems necessary for healthy offspring. His body, to ensure that this mate remain available, proceeds to trigger the chemical reactions that make him feels happiness, comfort, even lust, in her presence. These feelings lead to social actions such as dating, such as commitment, and eventually, to sex. Offspring are born, and the same reactions that lead to their occurance again lead the man to provide shelter, to provide stability, to ensure that his offspring will survive to the age where they too will pass on their genetic information.

This is not a matter of opinion. Every human action is the result of chemical reactions within the mind and body. Some scientists may argue as to which chemical at which time cause which emotion, but none argue that the emotions are caused by the chemicals. What a person decides to define these reactions as depends entirely on the society itself. What one culture would determine to be love, another culture would condemn as rape. What one culture considers protection, another considers abuse. There are cultures in which the idea of love is one-sided, in which, generally speaking, the only option the woman has is to show her love through her devotion, essentially creation a selfish definition of love for males only. In American culture, the idea of love being a transient thing is so well established that our divorce rate is at about 50%.

True Love cannot be defined as a romantic notion, nor as a physical act. It certainly cannot be defined as things which themselves have not even been shown to exist. When all is said and done, if we wish to define something, if we wish to truly explain what we can of it, we must, by sheer necessity, limit ourselves only to the hard, objective, universal, evidence, and that evidence all points to True Love being defined as nothing more than a complex chemical interaction caused by the instinctual desire to pass on the genes.


Now, having said all that, I wish to add one more thing: There is nothing wrong with living within a Fable. I do not believe in St. Nick, however I happily recount this story to my Godchild every Christmas, without the slightest pretense of doubt. There is nothing wrong with believing in the glory of love as something stronger, more powerful than our physical bodies will allow. Will Love move mountains? Will Love conquer all? It doesn't matter. Machines move mountains. Armies conquer all. Love will always be the beautiful cover story. Love will always make the story worth reading. True Love may be nothing more than a chemical reaction, but I happily promote the Fable, the Wonder, the Glory of Love because I will happily believe in it...

regardless of what the facts tell me.

Thank-you to both our debaters who both did an amazing job.I shall now hand this over to our very talented debate judges.

Note:Qarrah only debate organisers and debate participants may post during a debate.

Great debate both of you I really loved it (pun intended)
It’s a tough one to judge as you both presented a good strong case for and against. Being a romantic at heart and a realist of mind you guys had me jumping back and forth over the fence like a love struck jack rabbit.

Debator 1: Yelekiah
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 8
Style: 9
Persuasiveness: 8
Total: 34

Debator 2: Aquatus1
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 8
Style: 9
Persuasiveness: 7
Total: 33

Like Irish has already said, a very close debate – the closest I have judged, in persuasiveness and ability. Great debate!

(On a personal note, I loved this bit – “Sometimes you gotta say the baby's ugly.” Lol.)

Debator 1: Yelekiah
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 8
Style: 9
Persuasiveness: 8
Total: 34

Debator 2: Aquatus1
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 8
Style: 8
Persuasiveness: 9
Total: 34

Amazing job to one and all.

Debator 1: Yelekiah
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 10
Style: 9
Persuasiveness: 9
Total: 37

Debator 2: Aquatus1
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 9
Style: 9
Persuasiveness: 10
Total: 37

I know it's kind of a cop out having you both tie, but damn....you both did so well

Thanks to our lovely judges

Wow! This was a fabulous debate guys and the scores prove this! Incredibly close!!

Yelekiah (35)[W] vs Aquatus1 (34.6)