'Romantic love' is simply a mix of basic love and sexual attraction

The argument

There's no denying that love is involved in most relationships. That love, however, is no different than any other kind of love. The same emotional connection that you might feel for a best friend can also be felt for a romantic partner. The difference between a platonic relationship and a romantic relationship is not the kind of love between everyone involved; it's whether or not the two parties are sexually involved. Sex is what catapults a relationship to a different higher level of intimacy, thus allowing what could be a strictly platonic relationship to become romantic. The physical connection is what breaks down the walls of friendship and allows a romance to blossom.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This leaves no room for asexual relationships. There are plenty of people who identify as asexual who have prosperous, long-term romantic relationships. Insinuating that sex is the true marker of a romantic relationship does not account for relationships where sex 1) has never been present or 2) has been been present.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise asserts the identity it needs to prove: the claim that the affection in a romance is the same as the affection for a friend is exactly what is in dispute, and it is not established by observing that both are called love. [Rejecting P2] Sexual involvement cannot be the distinguishing mark, since asexual people form romantic partnerships and friends have sex without the relationship becoming romantic — and even if the analysis held, showing that something is composed of two other things does not show it is not real, any more than a compound is unreal for having constituents.