The Instigator
tcourtright
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
zingtonecowboy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Can someone be romantically in love with more than one person?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 69994
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

tcourtright

Pro

1. Romantic love is a strong emotional attachment and feeling of compassion shared among people in a relationship.
2. Being in a romantic relationship involves more than just sex, as there is a desire to care for one another shared between the members of the relationship.
3. Romantic love does not include infatuation, or a short-lived, intense set of feelings for someone or something, nor platonic love.
4. Romantic love is often solidified by marriage or the formal tags of a long-term relationships, implying some sort of commitment among the partner(s).
5. Monogamy is a social construct, therefore it is not the only "correct" option for romantic love.
6. The love shared between people in open or polygamous relationships is just as legitimate as monogamous love.
7. Members of such open relationships report they are happy with their relationship status and feel equally loved by their partner(s).
8. It is often the case that one person in a committed relationship is "dumped" by their partner. They had no intention of ending the relationship and they still love their original partner. Post break-up, they have met someone else and begin to fall in love with them, but still think about and maintain feelings for the original partner. This person is in love with two people.
9. Many married couples still love each other upon separation, realizing that they are too different to remain married. Each person can "move on" after the divorce and find someone else to be in a relationship with, but still readily admit they love each other. They, too, are in love with multiple people.
10. It is a common practice for people to date multiple people at once with the ultimate goal of choosing one person to join a committed, romantic, relationship with. In doing this process, they could fall in love with two different people and want to care for them in an equal manner. This person is in love with two people, also.
11. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time.

Noncontroversial Premises
Premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not controversial. Premise 1 is simply a definition romantic love which I believe my opponent will agree with. Premises 2 and 4 are qualities of such love that are universal and well-understood. Premise 3 is used to clarify the type of love being debated to ensure my opponent and I are debating the same thing.

Controversial Premises
Premises 5 and 6 are opinions and feelings that I think are true. There is no proof that humans are supposed to be committed to one person. The idea of monogamy is formed by an individual's community and greater society, as they choose to accept this idea as the social norm. The "abnormal" polygamy, in this case, is still a valid option for many.
Premise 7 continues to show the possibilities of successful romantic love between multiple people. Premises 8, 9 and 10 are scenarios that show the possibility of loving more than one person at the same time. In the first example, the lack of the original partner does not mean they cannot still love them. Nor does their existing love prevent them from finding new love in someone else. Premise 9 exemplifies a the continued mutual love and respect for the partners involved in a divorce, while still being able to find new love outside of that relationship. Again, premise 10 gives a scenario in which someone is left feeling equal love for more than one person. Though they might ultimately pick one person to be their partner, such might not be the case.
zingtonecowboy

Con

1. I agree with premise 1 (definition)
2. I understand premise 2, however it"s a bit wordy to be convincing.
3. I do not agree with this statement.
4. This statement is too opinionated and vague to convince.
5. I can agree with this statement, however I do not feel this is a strong argument.
6. I disagree with this statement
7. This is an example that does not have the numbers or long term proof, to solidify it.
8.-9. I disagree with these statement
10. This statement is a simple and vague opinion.
11. Therefore, I do not think it is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time.

Non Controversial Premises
1. 2.

Controversial Premises
3. Romantic love would be attached to all types of love and/or caring. All love connects. Romantic, platonic etc"
4. The words "often", "implying", and "some sort of" do not strongly support this statement.
5. In contrast, polygamy has proved in studies from 19th century Mormon colonies, that wealthier men, who had multiple mother"s for their children had children who did not survive past 15, more often then in families with monogamous parents.
6. This is far too opinionated. Are we debating open relationships or polygamy?
7. University of Nevada professors show in a study of participants who are romantically involved with more than one partner that there are many issues that come into play in these scenarios, that result in negative feelings.
8.-9. As you mentioned in premise 3. Romantic love does not include platonic, sort-lived, etc.. If that is the case, they are not romantically in love necessarily. Same for divorcees.
10. My problem with this statement is that there is no meter inside everyone that says, "now you"re in love." With that being said, the idea of loving two people at the same time, still isn"t "romantic" in this instance, nor does this premise validate the possibility of simultaneously loving two people who are dating.
Debate Round No. 1
tcourtright

Pro

3. I disagree. Infatuation is not the same as romantic love, though it can be paired with many of the same initial feelings as romantic love. Infatuation never ends in a commitment or "true" love. Someone may be very attracted to certain qualities of a person, but they do not love everything about that person. These unattractive qualities will lead to a realization that the relationship would not be successful, seeing as the nice parts of the person of interest do not sum up the entire individual. Also, romantic love cannot include platonic love, for example between family members, even though there is a mutual desire to care for one another. Love can connect people, but this is not my point. I was simply stating that platonic relationships cannot be seen as romantic.
4. Without these words, my point still holds firm. Romantic relationships are given tags or names like "being together," "engaged" or "married." By acknowledging their love with these titles, people are displaying their commitment to one another, be it with one other person or multiple people.
5. Such may be true, but what does your statement have to do with my argument? I was stating that monogamy is only seen as the social norm because people made it that way. Therefore, polygamy is also a fine option for people in a romantic relationship. My statement implies nothing about the parenting abilities in either relationship form. The people in these studies could have just been poor caregivers, which gives no support to the argument that polygamy is not a form of romantic love.
6. I do not agree. My statement that people in a polygamous relationship love their partners in a manner just as legitimate as their monogamous counterparts is completely plausible. We are debating romantic relationships, and polygamy can be a form of such relationships. This premise is used to prove that polygamous relationships are no different than monogamous ones, in that partners have the capacity to love each other romantically. They can all be happy together and love one another just as a married couple would.
7. Perhaps no such data or "numbers" exist because love cannot be placed on such a scaling system. It is impossible to go into an individual"s mind and pull out a data sheet that chronicles the love and passion they have for their partner(s). Your argument that people with multiple partners end up having negative feelings about each other does not go against my point. These people may be romantically involved, but that is an extremely vague statement. Romantically involved could mean just having sex or hooking up. It does not imply romantic love, like we are debating.
8. I disagree. I never said anything about this hypothetical relationship being short-lived, or most definitely not that it was platonic. The individual that was dumped still deeply loves their first partner, but finds new love in another person. The old love does not go away, even though they may be able to "get over it" and move on. They could admit to loving the old partner as well as the current.
9. Just as the last example, in the case of divorcees they do love the partner they have just separated from. These people could have been married for many years and realized that, for whatever the reason is, they should separate. Just like in example 8 when the dump-ee found new love, a divorced couple can still love their first partner. They may not love everything about that person, which could have caused the divorce, but they still love them.
10. I am sorry, but why isn't this an example of romantic love? You are right, there may not be a meter inside everyone that dings when they are in love, but it cannot be denied that it is possible to love two, or more, people romantically. Your argument is unconvincing seeing as you are just stating that opinion. My example most definitely validates my point that people can be in love with more than one person at the same time. The person who is dating multiple people can love two people equally and is unable to choose one partner over the other. This "conundrum" they face is caused by loving more than one person and feeling the pressure to choose one, when that does not have to be that case.
zingtonecowboy

Con

3. In no way do I think infatuation and romantic love are the "same". However, at some point in a relationship held together by romantic love there will be examples of lust, especially in romance. Infatuation can be the fuel that feeds the romantic fire.
4. "Being together" is a very different title than "engaged" or "married". We very rarely see anyone, unless in the small percent of polygamist groups marry more than one partner. Even then, the amount of successful relationships is small. In a study held at the University of Nevada it was found that more often than not, people in multiple romantic relationships ended up unhappy, while feeling jealousy or envy.
5. Except that in history, it has never worked. There is always an issue in the romantic balance. Who, on record held onto multiple romantic relationships successfully? Despite my divergence, I can say that my point there is to clarify that other factors make these relationships seem even less possible. To "function", in a relationship is to last and to have successes together. In the 19th century when the man who had five wives kids die young, it turns out the multiple relationships his or her parents had made them mentally unhealthy enough that they couldn"t survive past 15 years old.
6. But what about when jealousy comes into play? And/or envy? How could any group design a relationship between numerous partners without any of the negative, doubtful, or jealous natural feelings people have.
7. "Strong emotional attachment and feeling of compassion" in your definition leans towards romantic love as you seem to be leaning away from now. Romantically involved, and romantically in love differ as one is an "involvement", which is very vague.
8. This is the difference between romantic love, and just plain love. Post-breakup, one could still love their ex, but this does not mean they"re "romantically" involved. The "old" love doesn"t go away, I agree. If the "old" love is romantic love, and there is new love in the picture, one of those will end shortly.
9. I understand what you"re saying here, however we"re talking specifically about "romantic" love. If someone was in "love limbo", what happens when one party finds out about the other is a loss of romantic love.
10. With this being stated, are there any couples who lasted, that are open, multiple partner relationship success stories? I don"t believe any multi partner relationships have ever lasted long enough to confirm your side to this.
Debate Round No. 2
tcourtright

Pro

3. Given how you have chosen to define infatuation, I would have to disagree. I do not think infatuation leads to love. Infatuation is a short-term obsession, if you will. The sheer immaturity associated with infatuation sets it up for failure as a long-term relationship. When an individual with someone, they do not have the capacity to love that person entirely. They may think they are extremely attractive, or maybe funny. They have a great time with this person and they may "love" these initial attributes of the desired person. Over time, though, it is the case that they find many characteristics of that person they do not like, perhaps even despise. For this reason I do not think that infatuation can lead to romantic love, or be considered romantic love.
4. My argument is that for a relationship to be deemed "real" or "legitimate," a formal tag is to be attached to it. Such may be the case that a small percentage of the population enters multiple-partner relationships, but that does not mean it is impossible to be in one. The stated successfulness of all relationships may show a flaw in how people choose their partners or how they handle interpersonal relations and problems that arise during serious, romantic relationships, but it, again, does not debase the possibility of a multiple-partner relationship occurring successfully. Just because some fail does not mean the overall situation is impossible.
5. If you are only giving the example of Mormon settlements in the Western US, how can it be said that it has historically never worked? You cannot base your opinion off of a single set of data. For this very reason, there is no way of saying the lifespan of the children who were products of polygamous families was any longer or shorter without providing a control set to counteract, or support it. This control set would likely be data showing the average lifespan of children born into the same area of the US, but to "traditional" two-parent households. Without such data, it is impossible to say that dying at 15 years old was abnormal. Seeing as Mormons would have only recently settled this area of the United States, the short lifespan could be attributed to lack of knowledge of the natural environment, causing an inability to provide for children.
6. I think it is quite possible to formulate such a relationship. You cannot assume the listed factors would come into play, given that people entering a polygamous or open relationship would be fully aware and comfortable with the criteria. It is not comparable to let"s say, adultery, where one partner is blind-sided and betrayed by the other partner because they would never expect them to seek out other relations. In a polygamous relationship, it is well known that it will not only be just you and your partner- it will be you, and two or more other partners. If they are not comfortable sharing, then they are unfit for such a relationship to begin with. This does not mean that such relationships are impossible.
7. Might I bring to attention that you were the first to use the term "romantically involved," which I criticized for its vagueness. Also, the definition of romantic love is also yours. I am by no means altering my axis of the argument. I firmly believe the success of multiple-partner relationships is plausible.
8. How can you say that the old love will end once new love is found? You agree that the love remains, so how couldn't you classify this as romantic love still? If the dumped partner still feels the exact same way to their first partner, how can you tell them they are wrong? Perhaps the societal pressure of having to be monogamous forces people to hide their feelings of old love when they find new love. Those harbored feelings still exist throughout the entire experience.
9. My example of divorced couples still being in love with one another still holds true for the reasons I have listed in the previous premise. Given the possibilities of romantic love, I would say, yes, it is possible for this case to be true. This is not a matter of cheating, where someone purposely finds love elsewhere due to dissatisfaction, or whatever it may be, in their current relationship. In true romantic love, divorced couples would not necessarily lose their love for their first partners when they find new love. Just because it rarely happens, or that it is rarely documented or reported as so does not mean it can"t happen.
10. Given the rare circumstances of open, multiple-partner relationships, often due to the social constraints and pressures to remain monogamous, little scientific data exists to support my claim. But, what makes scientific evidence the determining factor in determining the successful occurrence and legitimacy of multiple-partner relationships? In society where such behavior is condemned, do you think it is plausible that people engaged in such a relationship would openly discuss it? I think it is unlikely. Again, the lack of documentation or formal acceptance does not mean such relationships cannot exist, which is the point we are arguing.
zingtonecowboy

Con

3. Infatuation is something that doesn"t necessarily stand on it"s own. Infatuation can be a quality of love. I do not see infatuation as the gateway drug to love. According to thefreedictionary.com infatuate means "to inspire with unreasoning love or attachment," and "to cause to behave foolishly." Infatuation is just a small quality of love, much like lust or compassion. You say that "when an individual is with someone, they do not have the capacity to love that person entirely." This is subjective on your behalf, and I do not agree, as I believe most people wouldn"t.
4. If one can romantically love numerous people, should it be considered a "legitimate" relationship? No relationship is impossible, given light of your statement, however, there is not enough proof or evidence that one could work, and last.
5. To relate these studies, in mortality rate to most current data, The same Dr. released more current data" "The patterns observed in recent studies of polygamous African societies are similar. The seven studies of this nature cited by Dr. Henrich reported that children of polygynous families are at increased risk of diminished nutritional status, poor health outcomes, and mortality. One study found that amongst the Dogon of Mali, even though per capita resources were equivalent between monogamous and polygamous households, children under age 10 in polygynous households were 7 to 11 times more likely to die."

6. Ok. With that being said, it would be necessary to see data for successfully polygamist groups. If "anything is possible", than sure such a relationship could formed, but the hypothetical word here is "could".
7. I am fine with your defintition of romantic love in round 1. I digressed.
8. Love and romantic love do not always go hand in hand. One loves their famil, they are not in love with their family. Perhaps the societal pressure of being in a relationship at all is why anyone gets married or dates. The harbored feelings are unique for everyone. It is tough to say that they will exist at all.
9. Again, this love between people is not romantic love. If someone could attest to this being true, I would argue, that they are not acting out of instinct, or lust, or hate even in one of the relationships. Not acting upon a romantic love with multiple partners.
10. Why is it rare to see or hear of multiple partner relationships? They are not successful. Societal norms in the 21st century would not be very shocked by these sorts of relationships even if they did exist and work.
Debate Round No. 3
tcourtright

Pro

1. Romantic love is a strong emotional attachment and feeling of compassion shared among people in a relationship.
2. Being in a romantic relationship involves more than just sex, as there is a desire to care for one another shared between the members of the relationship.
3. Romantic love does not include infatuation, or a short-lived, intense set of feelings for someone or something, nor platonic love. I can admit that infatuation can lead to romantic love, but I still think that it can exist as a stand-alone event and cannot be considered romantic love at that point.
4. Romantic love is often solidified by marriage or the formal tags of a long-term relationships, implying some sort of commitment among the partner(s). Regardless of documented proof, my opponent as agreed that any relationship is possible.
5. Monogamy is a social construct, therefore it is not the only "correct" option for romantic love. Even though polygamous families may have less successful families, as my opponent has pointed out, it does not mean they are no possible relationships.
6. The love shared between people in open or polygamous relationships is just as legitimate as monogamous love.
7. Members of such open relationships report they are happy with their relationship status and feel equally loved by their partner(s).
8. It is often the case that one person in a committed relationship is "dumped" by their partner. They had no intention of ending the relationship and they still love their original partner. Post break-up, they have met someone else and begin to fall in love with them, but still think about and maintain feelings for the original partner. This person is in love with two people. Regardless of whether or not they are admitted, they can still exist.
9. The lack of romance between divorced couples cannot be considered romantic love, but I still believe without this example the possibilities of multiple-partner romantic love exist.
10. It is a common practice for people to date multiple people at once with the ultimate goal of choosing one person to join a committed, romantic, relationship with. In doing this process, they could fall in love with two different people and want to care for them in an equal manner. This person is in love with two people, also.
11. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time.
Some of my premises have changed since the beginning of my argument, but my conclusion still holds firm. I think it is very possible for someone to be in a romantic relationship with multiple people and it being successful. My opponent brought up many good points pointing out when instances of polygamy have failed in many aspects, but they still existed. Polygamous families may have been less successful in raising families, but that does not prove the lack of romance between the members. That simple fact that these relationships existed, often for many generations, proves my conclusion that people can be in multiple-partner relationships.
My opponent had a lot of issues with the lack of data to support my conclusion, which is understandable, given the readily available data of failed multiple-partner romantic relationships would seemingly support their conclusion. But, I believe that do to monogamy being a long-standing social construct, people felt pressured to stay with one person. Even though, as my opponent has pointed out, that likely people would be more accepting of such relationships, the stigma still exists. Perhaps within the next few decades more data will arise to show that successful, meaning they are romantic and long-term, open or multiple-partner relationships exist. I have granted my partner that my premise 9 lacked the qualifications of romantic love, but my argument is still strong without it. In conclusion, I still find it possible and likely that multiple-partner romantic relationships exist and will continue to exist, regardless of the presence of scientific data. The foreseeable possibility that these relationships are possible is enough evidence to validate my point that it is possible to be romantically in love with multiple people.
zingtonecowboy

Con

. I agree with my opponent"s definition of romantic love.
2. I agree with this premise. Caring for one"s partner comes with romantic relationships.
3. Infatuation is a brief feeling that can occur at any time, while attracted to someone. Romantic love between two partners can have occasional feelings of infatuation.
4. Hypothetically "anything" is possible. In this case, outside of hypotheses, with or without the formal tags I stand by the fact that one not "romantically" love more than one partner.
5. Polygamy exists. Within those relationships it is not possible to be in romantic love with more than one partner. Love, sure. Romantic love is a contributing factors to why these polygamous relationships don"t last.
6. Whether or not the love between a group of lovers is legitimate is one thing. Whether or not romantic love exists between them all is the topic at hand.
7. Members of these relationships have reported also that they go through bouts of jealousy, envy, and distrust, leading to the failure of numerous romantic lovers.
8. Again, this is an example of plain old "love". Much like platonic love, after a relationship, there are very strong feelings between exes. However, this is not romantic love. Both parties are not involved together in this love, either. If one person has a new lover, or is dating it"s likely that they are not romantically in love wither their ex, despite the fact that they may still "love" their ex.
9. The fact that this example can be thrown out holds up to my point that it is impossible to romantically love multiple partners.
10. This person my be dating multiple people, and may be falling in love with more than one of them, however romance is likely to not exist here yet. Even if romantic love started to brew, I do not see it possible to simultaneously romantically love more than one partner.
11. Given these various points, data, and history it is not possible to "romantically love" more than one person at a time.
My opponent and I agree on many principles and definitions throughout, and despite these agreements, it is still impossible to love numerous partners. The points I bring up in history, and data from current studies across multiple societies prove that polygamy is an unsuccessful way to maintain "romantic love". As my opponent points out, there is not enough data to back up their side. Perhaps, as stated "within the next few decades more data will arise." For now, and fro this debate It is impossible to romantically love more than one par
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.