Government

Framing:
In status quo, Media, films, songs, and literature commonly portray love as spontaneous, irrational, and uncontrollable. Phrases like “love at first sight” or “you can’t help who you love” reinforce this. Rampant dating culture (e.g., on apps like Tinder or in reality shows like Love Island) emphasizes emotional chemistry and physical attraction, not intentionality. In the context of debate we are covering all types of love including fillial love, platonic love and romantic love. Government has one strong stance in this motion, which is to prove that love should be supported as a choice not as an unexpected spark or a societal obligation (ie: children being obligated to love their parents). On our side you can forcefully choose to love someone on command.

Problem statement:

• Sudden decisions may result in long-term irresponsibility or dry relationships
• Love may not be genuine when its a forced obligation
• Maintenence of love depends on acts of will not passion or chemistry

Model:
On our side of the house, we tell you that falling in love initially can happen unexpectantly, but staying in love or dedicating towards loving someone is completely deliberate. This framing supports the view that love is intentional, mature, and influenced by values and priorities not just “i see, i like, i love” and the only justification for love is because you get that sudden sense of affection.

Burden:

1. Which side of the house can guarantee long lasting relationships
2. Which side of the house can ensure a more sustainable and comfortable relationship.

Argument 1: Love is a deliberate decision not an uncontrollable emotion

The narrative to love someone is powerful, it is an eternal binding of dedication or affection towards those that you love. When we love someone it shows that we are willing to sacrifice and bear any consequences that is bestowed upon us. This shows that love is indeed a deliberate decision. It is the very choice to forgive, stay loyal, sacrifice and showing up even when times are tough that makes love genuine. We can’t leave love to impulsiveness but rather focus on who we should love. A selection guarantees that we have dedicated ourselves to loving someone and that it is genuine with no strings attached. If we were to revert to status quo where love exist in various narratives, we do not have the autonomy to genuinely love someone. Panels, to crystallise the image for you, you can picture a child forced to love their parents because it is a virtue. Society tells you that when your mom hits you or punishes you, its totally for the greater good of yourself and you will have to love her no matter what. Opposition may argue that it is in good faith and values that you love those close to you, but have they failed to consider that that exists on our side as well? When we feel loved, symmetrically we would want to love them back so opposition’s claim does not stand. The implication is we feel justified to love someone because you made the decision to love them based on multiple justifications and reasonings. Linking back to the burdens, side gov ensures that love is a rational choice that justifies relationships making it more viable and sustainable in the long term because long-term commitment depends on intentional action not fleeting feelings

Argument 2: Love is shaped by values, priorities and timing

Love is shaped by values, priorities and timing. People often choose who they date, pursue, commit to, or move on from. You can always have that small spark when you spot someone attractive, but never choose to love them due to moral differences or life goals. Love being a choice, provides flexibility and creates higher standards. When essentially you are not restricted to your feelings which are unreliable and subjective in the first place, it gives you more space and time for consideration. There is a multi-layered thought process going through your mind to determine if that person deserves to be loved or not. In comparison to side opposition where you feel that spark and pursue them, its not likely that you are going to be rational and justified to having a serious relationship. On government’s side, you are not pressured to love anyone but you have the free will to decide. Falling in love can be unexpectedly easy, but the deliberate choices needed to sustain it only exists on side government. If we were to rely on subconscious signs, we do not necessarily have the notion to love someone as we feel it’s not justified and we are compelled to stay no matter you love them or not because it’s a duty and an obligation now. We strongly support the narrative that you will need to choose each other everyday in order for love to work.

Opposition

Framing:
In status quo, Media, films, songs, and literature commonly portray love as spontaneous, irrational, and uncontrollable. Phrases like “love at first sight” or “you can’t help who you love” reinforce this. Rampant dating culture (e.g., on apps like Tinder or in reality shows like Love Island) emphasizes emotional chemistry and physical attraction, not intentionality.

Problem statement:

• Rationality completely alienate the most important variable in love – unpredictability
• The need for choice does not justify the arbitrary nature of love

Model:
“Love is not a choice” means that love is a powerful emotional and subconscious experience that occurs independently of rational thought. While actions in a relationship may be chosen, the feeling of love itself is involuntary. You cannot decide to fall in or out of love—it happens to you, shaped by chemistry, attraction, and emotional resonance. Love is more like an emotional state, not a series of decisions. You can choose how to act (e.g., to stay loyal), but you cannot force yourself to love someone or stop loving them on command. This framing protects the authenticity of love as deeply human and unfiltered by calculation

Burden:

1. Which side of the house can guarantee long lasting relationships
2. Which side of the house can ensure a more sustainable and comfortable relationship.

Argument 1: Love is uncontrollably ambiguous
Love cannot be determined by any metrics. Love itself is a irrational feeling, something that just happens unexpectantly without any reasoning. That is truly what makes love pure and genuine, to permanently bond with someone that requires sacrifice. Government is extremely confused with the idea of love. They believe that you can love someone based on calculations and justification but let me cripple their case to the core. Intense attraction, obsession, or desire for someonen is infatuation not love. Love deepens over time; infatuation often fades quickly once reality sets in. Being in love with the idea of someone, not who they truly are is idealization/ fantasy, not love. Love accepts flaws, idealization ignores them. Staying in a relationship or caring for someone because you feel they are very dominant and capable is admiration. Love is voluntary no matter the circumstances unlike admiration. See the idea here? Love is often misconcepted with other factors so when you consider too much, it tends to get confusing. You just simply can’t force it. It is not to say that you should love someone because it make sense (eg: stable/kind) but rather falls on the chemistry between individuals. When you “Love” someone due to logic, it completely misinteprets the meaning of love. The detrimental impact of this is love is seen as logical planning not unexpected compatability. Side government is working under the illusion that someone is best for you because they possess all these virtuous properties but no emotional chemistry.

Argument 2: Love overrides logic
This point perfectly complements argument 1 and fortifies claims that haven’t been refuted yet. On side opposition love exists in the purest form. It is the most unexpected bond and love keeps that bond in place throughout thick and thin. Love is the unconditional sacrifice and the belief that any imperfections can be fixed by love. Government may argue that initial love is unless when there is no long-term commitment. They are wrong because they totally underestimated the power of love, love brings out the best/ worst in people, it is the very compound that keeps relationship long-lasting because lovers need to accomodate one another or to make subtle sacrifices. When your partner is physically impaired because they were caught in an accident, you will still love them on our side because we love them for them, there exist no reasoning on why do you love them, you just do. When you are in love, you would care for the other unconditionally because love compels you to. Which is why we fulfil the burden of this debate because in a long-term relationship, love outweights any inconvenience or imperfections. Panel, we must be shameful to be so easily manipulated by society. Love is extremely idealized by the mass nowadays, love is twisted in such a way that it just doesn’t seem pure anymore just because the majority of the society believes that it is unfair or unjust. Let me crystallize this for everyone. When a partner willingly stays in a relationship although the significant other is a troublesome drug addict, society tells you that this is not love but dependency or guilt. It may seem painful for the average individual but to the partner willing to sacrifice, this is the overwhelming feeling of affection; the need to accomodate; the need to sacrifice; the need to care; this is true love, something that simply cannot be justified or reasoned with.