D-Explorer:
Risky_man, what games were you trying to play with those grammers? LOL. Dude, that was your hotest post for me.

Lol.. I was just having fun. You know, I actually have more words that I'm suppose to add, but I don't want Dubem to cry.. LOL

Risky man, do u mean to tell that u took the risk of coming at me with all you had just to faint at the end of the show...oya tell me, what is the matter.... get well soon man

Hahahahaha, you guys are wonderful.

@pearl~hapi and AmBeautiful... I'm getting better. You guys were wonderful, I have learn a lot from this whole thing. I have to tell you, it was educative (both sides).

Dubem, you should thank your stars.. I for show you pepper

AmBeautiful, you know when I told Killz that me and you will be supporting this motion, I was just joking but I was suprise you took a stand by me. Lol

Yeah Greedie, I agree. They all did great. Cloaked in objectivity, I was open to any logic that could douse the burning essence of money for attraction/affection and indeed, I was impressed.

But like I always say; something MUST make someone like someone. Romantic Love is hardly, if ever , given solely. And however we may choose to define it, it is but a 'feeling' of intense attraction and many more grammar lol, at the end at the day. Almost anything can be offered to serve as its hinge; looks, se.x, swag and yes...money.
So if an intense attraction (which could very well be love, looking that no one's the inventor of love to give a standard measurement) was ignited by any of these, how then do you expect it to stay afloat in the absence of that, bearing the general fact in mind, that feelings can/do fade?

Almost Nobody from the negative side could come from that angle to lay any worthy emphasis on the actual source of the love and thereby, relate it to what could keep it going.

Dubem made a go for it and I must commend him, but he ended up contradicting his analogy. Cos if the 'source' of the life of love/intense attraction for money which is the person in question as he says, is indeed responsible for sustaining the love/attraction, then it must mean that the source must be maintaining the availability of the cause(money in this case) of the attraction.

In the end however, I am wiser. Thanks guys.

Risky_man: @pearl~hapi and AmBeautiful... I'm getting better. You guys were wonderful, I have learn a lot from this whole thing. I have to tell you, it was educative (both sides).

Dubem, you should thank your stars.. I for show you pepper

AmBeautiful, you know when I told Killz that me and you will be supporting this motion, I was just joking but I was suprise you took a stand by me. Lol

Risky_man:
Dubem, you should thank your stars.. I for show you pepper

any pepper wen pass the one wey u don show me na wickedness.
besides are u a pepper farmer?

Love ,could come if it will, when it will. But i better go find the money to maintain it.

Rocktation, if I understood you well, u meant that if the foundation of a romantic love is no more (eg money), the love will turn sour, no?

Here we go! Let the judges flex their intellectual prowess

pearl~hapi:
I lashed eeerm skydeep and we wooooooooon.cheers to my team

You might not be lucky next time baby.

xyneriseskydeep no fit rig dis one?

iyatrustee: xyneriseskydeep no fit rig dis one?

. He is not a judge

woreva mehn! how is the little man?

iyatrustee: woreva mehn! how is the little man?

I think is the next compound not mine

gree-die:
Rocktation, if I understood you well, u meant that if the foundation of a romantic love is no more (eg money), the love will turn sour, no?

Yeah. Logic points that way, don't you think? It is quite safe to say that if the foundation stone (e.g trust and security) of any feeling of fondness or likeness, is left untended, that feeling goes to pieces. Except of cos, there exist other qualities that make up this cornerstone....which just leads back to the same thing I mean, supposing they become unavailable.

I totally agree wit u. Such relationship has no future, if  d foundation is built on frivolities, it is bound to fall wen those factors r removed... One can have a relationship and not be in love but wen a couple in love decide to ve a relationship, do we say that der relationship is founded on love or the frivolities?? If it's d former, do we need d later to nourish it? If it's but a mere relationship, den ofcz absence of the foundation should nullify it    

I ve bin thinking, money shouldnt be the crutch of a relationship, but it is a tool, a handy tool. Can money buy happiness? Yea, atleast in love & that's all dat matters- love, happiness, money! No one really talks abt money in love & yet we want better jobs, good homes etc. If we need money in our lives, why not in love?  I'm trying not to sound lyk a gold digger here but believe me, money is d catalyst of the whole " happily ever after" fable. Witout money u can be happy, true, but it ll be more difficult than u think. Money may not bring about happinness but lack of money won't either, money ll  atleast make u be miserable in comfort.

Now, about hinges... Hooking up is all abt a good balance. Der r 3 stages in love we all follow knowingly or unknowningly
1- looks and personality-- these r impressive during d initial stages of a relationship where we don't spend too much time together and wen we r together, it's all abt being nice to each oda
2- shared interest and fanciness-- this stage comes after we ve shared kisses or gone all d way, now we try to understand each other and share, we begin to fancy certain innate qualities in our partner
3- emotional support and wealth-- after d early stages of dating and Falling in love, d touchy details dat can cause wear and tear begins to crop up; bad hygriene, freakiness, emotional support and yes, money. This is d difficult stage,the couple in love ll ve to  continually polish der love and keep d tear @ bay

I don't not beleive in love @ first sight, dat is where we ve hinges. Falling in love is a gradual process, first d personality attracts u den d attraction and shared interest makes u fall in love and all others makes u stay in love. Remove one tiny piece, say looks, money, and d odas can still stand.

A great relatioship don't just happen cz ple love eachother very much. Love cannot sustain itself, u have to replenish it. Let's be realistic, love doesn't conquer all. Apart from Gods love, all others are changable, perishable and can be of a temporary basis. Money isn't everything, heck, it's a tiny piece of the equation called love but it goes a long way ahead of wat comes next

however, I ve learnt dat money shouldn't be accorded more importance than it deserves. The debaters have shown me dat if money is made d sole sustainer, things are bound to go awry. The debate was an eye-opener, I thank everyone

Apt.

I applaud all contestants, enjoyed reading through your varying point of views.

Of course, money can't buy Love but money is needed to sustain Love.
have you ever wondered why the guys find it extremely difficult to believe/accept a girl can actually look beyond their want and love/stay with them for who they really are
? they know this simple fact even if they fail to acknowledge it.

Good job contestants!