The Instigator
Clearys
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BrandonTorres
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is it possible to be in love romantically with more than one person at the same time?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 405 times Debate No: 70041
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Clearys

Pro

1. Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person.
2. An individual can feel an emotional or physical attraction to more than one person.
3. Individuals can be romantically in love with multiple people because of the nature of the law of attraction, which draws similar energies together and can encourage an emotional attraction to like minded individuals.
4. Open relationships exist as an agreement between two individuals that they can also see other people. Said relationships are built upon the terms that both parties can do what they please without telling one another.
5. Polygamous relationships involve having ore than one spouse at one time. There are many successful polygamous relationships, i.e the Brown family, a.k.a Sister Wives.
6. According to Psychology, it takes a fifth of a second to fall in love, so technically individuals can fall in love with more than one person and this can happen quite often if the right chemicals are induced in the brain, yet choosing their partner is up to them.
7. Romantic love and a monogamous relationship are not mutually exclusive. One can exist without the other, and are two separate entities.
8. Not all monogamous couples are romantically in love. Faithfulness to one person does not guarantee a loving relationship.
9. Therefore, it is possible for an individual to be in love with more than one person romantically.

Non-Controversial
Premises 1, 4, and 5 are non-controversial.
1. My opponent and I have agreed on this definition of romantic love.
4. This is the definition of an open relationship and can not be refuted.
5. This claim is based on evidence of a real polygamist family that has formed successful relationships.

Controversial
Premise 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are controversial.
2. Feelings and emotions are subjective, therefore one can argue that individuals can't experience romantic love with more than one individual, or that every experience is different and there is no way of knowing. However, this is not to say that it is not possible for individuals to be attracted to multiple people in a romantic way since feelings are unpredictable and cannot be prevented. Although love may be interpreted differently from individual to individual, it is always sparked by the same attraction and emotional connection, which one can form with multiple people in a lifetime.
3. One can argue that the law of attraction is true only for energies, and although we can attract energy and people that are like us, that does not mean we attract them in a romantic way. Yet, many people who are alike become attracted to one another and can form a romantic relationship based off of these likenesses. It is indeed possible for people to find this attraction in multiple individuals.
6. Although this claim relies upon psychological research, my opponent can argue that there are different types of love, and that although we can love many people we only love one romantically. However, it is possible to fall in and out of love with people, and these can crossover at a point. That being said, an individual may love one person at a time and come to love another as well.
7. Although polygamist relationships do exist and can be successful, my opponent will most likely argue that monogamy and the devotion to one individual is the epitome of romantic love. However, there are many polygamist relationships that succeed based off of the balance created between having multiple spouses. Just because one may not agree with a certain religion or point of view, does not mean it isn't possible.
8. My opponent may argue that there indeed needs to be faithfulness as an important component of a successful loving romantic relationship. However, as stated earlier, open relationships can be successful without the two partners being sworn exclusively to each other.
BrandonTorres

Con

1.Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotion attraction towards another human being.
2.It is possible to genuinely love more than one person at once, but not romantically.
3.Individuals can love more than one person in an instance of having more than one child.
4.If an individual were truly romantically in love with someone he/she would not pursue anyone else he/she finds attractive.
5.Marriage is a promise. Promises that two people make to love each other until death. Promises can be broken, which is why an individual can romantically love someone other than his/her spouse.
6.Having more than one sexual partner would imply that there are no romantic feelings had on either end of any one of those "relationships".
7.Therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at any given time.

Non-Controversial
Premise 1 is not controversial because it is a definition.
Premise 3 is not controversial because it is providing an example to make premise 2 more credible

Controversial
Premises 2,4,5, and 6 are all controversial.
2. Can be argued either way because of its vagueness.
4. My partner could argue that being romantically in love with someone does not prevent an individual from meeting someone whom he/she finds endearing and decides to pursue.
5. Controversial because even though marriage is a promise and promises can be broken, that does not mean that it is impossible to love someone other than an individual"s spouse without still loving that same spouse.
6. Having sex with more than one person could be a single person sleeping around, a person in an open relationship, or someone in a committed relationship sleeping around. In any of these situations, it could be argued that any of the individuals mentioned could romantically love a couple or more of the women he/she is having sex with.
Debate Round No. 1
Clearys

Pro

3. The argument is that people are loving more than one person romantically, not platonic love. Yes, you can love your family members, but it can not be equated with loving a significant other. However, concurrent relationships exist and flourish, where an individual has two partners and nurtures these relationships romantically.

4. You argue that if a person loves someone they will no longer find another person attractive. However, there are many people who find others attractive regardless of their relationship status. If this were the case, then I could argue that if someone were romantically in love with someone else, they would be accepting and let them do whatever they please. Thus, allowing them to love another person if they so chose to.

5. Im confused by this completely, because you're almost arguing for my side. By saying that promises can be broken, you"re saying that yes it is possible to love more than one person. In which case, I agree wholeheartedly. I just wanted to point this out so that you can correct it as needed and get back on track.

6. Having more than one sexual partner does not imply that they aren"t romantically in love. Some couples may attend sex parties, and although they are romantically in love with one another, they are comfortable with sharing. To further argue my point, having seal relations with multiple partners neither proves or disproves that someone is romantically in love with the individuals in question or not. Arguing that physical attraction can not involve romantic love is not substantial, as romantic love needs physical attraction to flourish.
BrandonTorres

Con

3. I understand that the argument is about romantic love and not platonic love. What I was trying to accomplish in my premise was compare the two. Romantic love and platonic love are similar in such a way that one individual cares for another"s well being, but completely different when talking about romance. Yes, a platonic love can be felt for more than one person, but romantic love is special and although it may seem like an individual romantically loves more than one person at a time, but if that individual was forced to choose, he/she would be able to identify his/her romantic love from his/her platonic love.

4. You may have misread premise 4. I acknowledged that an individual may find someone else attractive, but truly being romantically in love with a different individual would prevent the first individual from pursuing whomever he/she finds attractive.

5. In this premise, I am simply saying that an individual can love someone other than his/her spouse, but in doing so he/she would be breaking his/her promise of marriage by no longer romantically loving his/her spouse. I am not arguing that an individual can romantically love his/her spouse AND another person. I am arguing that if that individual were to romantically love someone other than his/her spouse, he/she would be breaking the promise he/she made when he/she got married.

6. I concede your argument that intercourse does not prove nor disprove if a person is romantically in love with another or not.
Debate Round No. 2
Clearys

Pro

3. I am still a bit confused with the point you are trying to make. If platonic love is not the issue, then what is the argument? I am not arguing for platonic love, only romantic. Comparing the two, which share some of the same qualities, doesn"t mean that it is impossible for one to love another romantically. Romantic love between multiple partners is possible, and just as special no matter the number. I do kind of see now what point you are making, trying to differentiate the two to prove that there might be confusion. However, when in romantically in love, there is a recognizable difference from platonic love. Not only are different parts of the brain active around the person, or people, you love- but the level of attraction is clearly much different. Therefore, platonic love and romantic love are not easily confused.

4. I did not gather that from your premise originally, but thanks for clearing it up. However, I do not think that being romantically in love with one individual can prevent you from pursuing another. Even in the case where people aren"t in love with multiple individuals, there are times where they stray and seek others. Therefore, it would not be impossible for one to pursue another while being romantically in love with someone else. In the instance of concurrent romantic relationships, chemistry is an important factor. If an individual can share chemistry with one, then that same chemistry can very well be felt with another. Someone else that they very well may seek out. The argument that they may not seek out another individual because they are dating/married to their significant other does not support your claim that it is not possible to love more than one individual romantically at the same time.

5. I understand your premise more clearly now. However, regardless of the promise a couple makes when they marry, it does not prove that there isn"t a possibility of them loving another individual at the same time. Promises can be broken. They may deeply care and love their spouse, but that doesn"t mean they couldn"t love another individual just the same. A promise does not guarantee that an individual will love that same person eternally and just that person alone. They could hold concurrent relationships, where they are romantically in love and involved and are able to maintain them- regardless of their status (marriage, dating, etc.). Whether the relationships last or not is not the question. The argument is whether it is merely possible to hold concurrent romantic relationships. The promise may be broken, but whatever consequences follow is not the issue.
BrandonTorres

Con

3. I concede that platonic relationships are much different from romantic relationships. Although, I would like to argue that in the early stages of a relationship or multiple relationships, it is not easy to determine which is which. In the beginning of any relationship, it is possible to mistake romantic love for pure physical attraction, or just the characteristics the other individual(s) decides to show him/her. The basis of my argument is that an individual can only know if he/she truly loves someone romantically when he/she gets to know the other individual for who they truly are. And up until that time, the emotions he/she feels for the other could be thought to be romantic love, but be something else. To bring this argument full circle, learning someone inside and out takes countless hours of quality time and effort and it is simply unheard of that a man or woman would put that much time and effort into more than one person at a time.

4. In your argument, you said that you don"t think that being romantically in love could keep an individual from falling romantically in love with someone else. Then gave the example of concurrent relationships. I have not heard of any concurrent romantic relationships that are successful. The only instance where true romantic love persists is in a monogamous relationship; the wonderful people out in the world that have been married for 50+ years show what it is to be romantically in love. The husband or wife may have strayed from the marriage in that time, but if he/she fell romantically in love with someone else, they would not love his/her spouse anymore and the marriage would not have lasted 50+ years. If he/she did stray, it would have been something they regretted and realized he/she still romantically loved his/her spouse and went back to him/her. Since the spouse that got cheated on truly loved his/her spouse, the cheater was forgiven and both parties continued their marriage.

5. For this argument, I would like you to take my previous argument into consideration. I would also like to add the simple point that being romantically in love would satisfy any individual"s love/lust. Having such emotions satisfied would, indeed, prevent an individual from straying from his/her marriage/relationship.
Debate Round No. 3
Clearys

Pro

1. Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person.
2. An individual can feel an emotional or physical attraction to more than one person.
3. Individuals can be romantically in love with multiple people because of the nature of the law of attraction, which draws similar energies together and can encourage an emotional attraction to like minded individuals.
4. Open relationships exist as an agreement between two individuals that they can also see other people. Said relationships are built upon the terms that both parties can do what they please without telling one another.
5. Polygamous relationships involve having ore than one spouse at one time. There are many successful polygamous relationships, i.e the Brown family, a.k.a Sister Wives.
6. According to Psychology, it takes a fifth of a second to fall in love, so technically individuals can fall in love with more than one person and this can happen quite often if the right chemicals are induced in the brain, yet choosing their partner is up to them.
7. Romantic love and a monogamous relationship are not mutually exclusive. One can exist without the other, and are two separate entities.
8. Not all monogamous couples are romantically in love. Faithfulness to one person does not guarantee a loving relationship.
9. Therefore, it is possible for an individual to be in love with more than one person romantically.

Although my opponent has provided many well thought arguments, I stand by my argument that romantic love is possible with multiple individuals at the same time. Feelings can occur more than once, and feelings that we may share with on individual can also happen with another. although a relationship may meet your physical and emotional needs, that does not prove that it will prevent someone from seeking out another and being attracted to them. A person can be completely happy, that does not make it impossible for them to fall for someone else. Thus, I stand by my argument that being in love with two individuals simultaneously is possible.
BrandonTorres

Con

1.Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotion attraction towards another human being.
2.An individual may confuse the feelings he/she has for another with romantic love, but they will eventually realize he/she only romantically loves one person.
3.Romantically loving someone takes time and effort to be put into a relationship and putting the same amount of time and effort into more than one relationship would be extremely stressful and unproductive.
4.I stand by my argument that being romantically in love with someone would prevent an individual from seeking another.
5.Breaking the promise of marriage is only done so when an individual in the marriage no longer feels the romantic love he/she used to and so he/she cheats and if he/she realizes he/she does love his/her spouse, he/she will go back, but if he/she does not romantically love his/her spouse anymore, he/she will pursue others.
6.Having more than one sexual partner does not prove nor disprove the presents of romantic love.
7.Not all monogamous couples are romantically in love. Being faithful does not prove that there is romantic love present, which is why an individual would stray from him/her and seek someone else.
8.Thus, it is not possible to romantically in love with more than one person at a time.
Even though my opponent has made many strong arguments, I stand by my side of the argument. The feeling of romantic love is something that comes about once, maybe twice in a lifetime and when an individual sees it, he/she does not let anything get in the way of that. He/she may show a moment of weakness, but that mistake does not define who he/she is or whom he/she loves. Therefore, I stand by my argument that it is not possible to love more than individual simultaneously.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.