I'm sorry. Let me be clear about something. I am more than ready to admit a loss when I have one. But when the verdict that has been cast is based on LIES or misreading errors. What would you have done? Accept the lost then just insult the poor judge? Or try to understand how this judge came to make the mistake?
If I had thought the judge was honestly mistaken, I would have taken it up with him privately. Asked him to explain his reasoning and then pointed out the flaws in it, if there were any. If his logic was flawless, then I would have had to at least consider that I might have been the one mistaken.
The only Debate that was supposed to be decided by a 3rd party was about the existence of God. And the person that I was debating wrongly assumed that I was debating the existence of God outside our mind/body. So did the judge. I underlined that mistake and moved on. (since the mod did not tolerate more comments on his judgement, he does that sometimes. Gives you a warning and when you ask precisely why he ask you to shut up, or tells you he won't read you anymore, no time for that)
No, the purpose of the debate was whether a god existed. You failed to establish that a god existed. Instead, you equivocated your god with an emotion and then claimed that since emotions existed, your god existed. However, an emotion is not a god, despite your claim. This is because you also stated that your definition of a god is one who is the ultimate best (has all imaginable qualities). As emotions are not the ultimate best (by any definition), emotions cannot be gods. Finally, you gave nothing to support your assertion that your god was as real as an emotion; the closest you came was when you tried to compare the emotion of love and a god. Since the emotion of love has no independent existence (it requires a person to feel it in order to exist) and each person's conception and expression of love can differ, the most you could have shown with this is that each person had their own conception of a god. This would never have shown that any god had an independent existence.
Because you contradicted yourself, you lost the debate. You could have chosen to accept this gracefully (your loss was due to a mistake you made, and did not actually disprove the existence of your god); instead, you tried to continue arguing on technicalities. I am not interested in going into those technicalities here, since this is the Debate Challenges thread. The point is that you could have ended the debate in such a way as to gain respect, and instead chose to stubbornly continue it, insisting that your opponent and the judge were wrong. That is not conducive to other people being willing to debate you.