args

Loving is an art

I thank my opponent for her responses! As a brief road-map, I will first be refuting the attacks made on my contentions, and I will proceed to attack my opponent's arguments =Arguments= Pro- Contention 1: Justification of love- The fact that there are so many stages proves that it takes skill an practice. immature love will stay immature love forever if it is allowed to, only with skill (Which comes over time) and Practice can immature love become mature love Motherly Love- When I say motherly love is a given is assumed in the context that the love is there in the first place. Falling in love- This point is conceded Maintaining love through a difficulty- - For those who do not view their differences as a problem, there is no problem to reconcile - Of course they need each other because they love each other, which is why reconciliation of problem is so important. Ultimately my opponent never really makes a valid argument here at all. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- - My opponent is attacking my quote from Erich Fromm out of context; and at that they don't even attack the full quote. the symbiotic attachment isn't to another person, but to ego. Thus it isn't love. - Honestly my the warrant behind my opponent's argument that it isn't a hefty deed proves that loving is an Falling in love- This point is conceded Maintaining love through a difficulty- - For those who do not view their differences as a problem, there is no problem to reconcile - Of course they need each other because they love each other, which is why reconciliation of problem is so important. Ultimately my opponent never really makes a valid argument here at all. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- - My opponent is attacking my quote from Erich Fromm out of context; and at that they don't even attack the full quote. the symbiotic attachment isn't to another person, but to ego. Thus it isn't love. - Honestly my the warrant behind my opponent's argument that it isn't a hefty deed proves that loving is an art; as she says "If one practices and develops enough skill to love people, then it could be possible for them to love any person they encounter." Con- Contention 1: - My opponent's warrant is comprised of broken logic. "they don't need them, but love them anyway so it's not an art"? Simply by making such a statement, you do not prove that love is not an art; all you prove is that motherly love is a more beautiful art. - My opponent claims that if love is simply given it is not an art, this is untrue as it is a correlation causation fallacy. The mother does not begin the process of loving when the child is born, but all throughout her life she is conditioned to love. She is groomed and give the necessary knowledge. Contention 2: - First in the case of the divorce, we must ask the question of whether there was any love in the first place. Many couples get married not out of love; but because they have a child on the way, because they feel they need to, for financial security, because one of them pressured the other into it. - Next we must realize that if a spouse simply "falls out of love" for no reason, it is was more likely than not immature love in the first place; thus not inclusive to this round.