The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

A person cannot be in love with two people simultaneously

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,538 times Debate No: 21294
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Yaaaay another cliche social perspective.

First round for acceptance, and for my opponent to post his/her argument if he/she so chooses.

Person: Human Being, Homo Sapien

In love: romantic love, Eros love.

No new arguments in the fourth round.

Let's make this a good debate, no equivicating, or silly semantic tactics.

Come at me bro

or Bro-et...


I accidentally chose the wrong side of this argument. I thought it read A person can be in love with two people simultaneously and you were the con. However, i will try to debate this to the best of my abilities.

Love is defined as an intense feeling of deep affection. This feeling is so intense that it is what makes a woman you may have met in your 20's (a spouse) as important as a woman you have known your entire life (a sister). These deep affections are also about making sacrifices and choices to give your love to an individual. Once you share your love with numerous people the deepness and quality of this love is somewhat tainted because love is just liking everything in existence besides existence itself. It does not have an unlimited supply. If you love two people equally it means that you are not willing to sacrifice one for the other and it shows that you cannot reach the intense deepness love entails, something that a person can reach by being willing to sacrifice other things and people, for that one person. Thus, showing love in it's ultimate, raw form.
Debate Round No. 1


Gracias to Con for accepting my debate and choosing to carry on even though he did so by mistake.

I could have just dumped the burden of proof on Pro for this debate and let him make the arguments while I try and counter them, but what fun would that be. I will make my own assertions, and will attempt to rebut his as well.
Again, the resolution I will be arguing against is as follows: "A person cannot be in love with two people simultaneously."


1. Once in love, always in love.
I believe that many of us have heard someone say "You don't just stop loving someone" or some variation of that phrase at some point in our lives. In countless romance books, movies, and in real life instances most of us have observed or experienced this for ourselves. We all know that one person who fell hopelessly in love with a person and was certain that this was their soul mate, the person they would spend the rest of their lives with, only to be wrong and end up heartbroken. They usually get over their former love by finding another to help get over previous one. Often times in these scenarios, the latter does not cancel out the former but rather pushes it back. The new lover helps their broken partner to not fall OUT of love with the former, but to get over the former.

Our first loves usually don't work for numerous reasons other than foul play such as death, long distance, foreign parents arranging our marriages, significant other is an alien, Naraku kills our lover and frames us for it then our lover shoots us with an arrow that binds us to a tree for 50 years....

But we don't usually fall out of love with that person; we just find a new love and move on.

2. Probability of desirable traits.
There are 6 billion+ people on this Earth. Based on sheer probability alone, there are bound to be several people that possess maybe not all, but the sufficient qualities necessary to fall in love with them. It is completely reasonable to believe that one can meet 2 fantastic people at the same time, and without even trying, fall in love with them both. One might love them for different reasons, but it"s love never the less.

3. Love is not a physical, tangible entity that embodies actual space.
It is simply a feeling. As far as I know, science has yet to find an actual love bug, or scanned anyone's body and been able to point and say yep, by golly that's it, there's the love virus right there. In the process of falling in love/being in love, the "heart" does not reach maximum capacity and suddenly has no room to love anyone else. It is a feeling/emotion, and like any other emotion, it can be directed towards at least two things at once. Take being horny for example. I'm sure most have us have seen someone that was just so incredibly hot, that almost all of your sex hormones just fired at once, but it's not like once you were horny, you were only physically attracted to that person and that person only. I don't think there's any one reading this that can tell me that they've only been physically attracted to one person in their whole entire life. Love and lust are the same in the sense that they are both feelings, and they can be directed towards more than once object at once.


1. My opponent makes the claim that loves "does not have an unlimited supply".
Says who? What proof does he have to back up such a claim? Is life an MMORPG in which we have a finite bar/meter of love and once we use it all up that's it? If love truly is finite, how much of it do we have? Is it a cup, a pint, a gallon, or enough to fill up Yankee Stadium? I've had less than a cup full of Juicy Fruit before and I've shared that with multiple people. My former roommate and I used to share gallons of milk all the time. This one time, I had a bag of skittles, and I shared it with almost everyone in the classroom, I mean yeah it was a king sized bag, but that's beside the point. Even if my opponent can prove that the amount of love each person holds is finite, he would then have to prove that love is a finite substance that simply cannot be shared with more than one person at the same time.

2. My opponent makes a second argument that you cannot love two people equally at the same time. This is moot point because the debate topic isn't whether or not one can love two people equally simultaneously. It is simply whether or not simultaneously love is possible regardless of the distribution of it.


The points you made are very valid, but when it comes to the question of can a person love more than one person simultaneously, it's simply not true because love is for one person, period. Lol I sound like a close minded christian.
Debate Round No. 2


Well there you have it folks. This looks like a pretty open and shut case here. My opponent not only affirms the validity of my points, but also makes no effort to defend his own previously made points. He simply refutes my stance on the resolution without providing any proof.

Extend all my arguments.


TheShamelessTruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend my arguments.


I'm sorry i didn't make this fun for the readers and wasted my opponents time and his debate. I really just have always completely agreed with him.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
It's possible, but it's about right or wrong. And this is wrong. You give your heart to one girl/boy and only one. Unless of course it's ur religion then tht's different. That's also called cheating.
Posted by MikeyMike 4 years ago
He keeps trolling....

It was cute at first, now it's just irritating.
Posted by MikeyMike 4 years ago
I only cancelled it cause I don't wanna be in 4 debates at once. I will re-open when i'm done.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Why cancel this? This is a good topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF