The Instigator
Ari.Castillo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
deelux1775
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is it possible to love more than one person at once?

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: 1/14/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 68323
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Ari.Castillo

Pro

1. For the purposes of my argument, love is defined as intense feeling of deep affection. Romantic love requires sexual attraction, attachment and and sharing of thoughts and feelings similar to your beloved.
2. Do not confuse this type of love for familial love or love held within friendships.
3. It is possible for a person to be sexually attracted to more than one person at one time.
4. It is possible to have feelings of attachment to more than one person at once.
5. It is possible to share mutual thoughts and feelings with more than one person.
6. Monogamy is a socially constructed concept.
7. Although monogamy seems to be the most represented and socially accepted form of intimate relationship in the United States, polygamy is largely practiced in other religions, such as Islamic religions.
8. People do practice polygamy and open relationships in which they claim to love both partners at once, which confirms the possibility of loving two people at once.
9. Only one example of polyamorous love is needed to confirm the possibility of such love.
10. There is empirical knowledge has discounted any negative consequences that opposers of this belief might argue.
11. It is possible to love more than one person at once.

Premises 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are non controversial statements.
Premises 4, 5, 8-11 are controversial statements.

Premise 4: Feelings of attachment refers to feeling of being in a relationship with another.
Premise 5: You can agree to with or share goals with more than one person.
deelux1775

Con

1.In premise 1 disagree with the implementation of sexual attraction being absolutely necessary in love. It is not absolutely necessary in a romantically loving relationship under the circumstance of time. All human beings are subject to the consequence of old age in the passing of time, thus leading to unavoidable physical change at some point. And the idea of love goes back dating prior to medical enhancement surgery that is more readily accessible now, prior to 1850.

2.In premise number 4, I beg to differ on attachment being expressed exclusively as a foundation for a romantic relationship. Because it is possible to have a strong life long attachment to a non-romantic partner. For example soldiers that are brothers of war and have survived near death experiences are attached/bonded in ways unknown to non-war brethren.

3.In premise number 6, there is a variance in understanding of the definition of socially constructed concepts. Human Beings are distant relatives to primates who are part of the animal kingdom. There are known animals that live and congregate in a variety of different "social" ways.

4.Premise number 8 is a subjective claim, because I have witnesses people in polygamous relationships that are acting out of selfishness and are using the other for equitable benefits and survival out of necessity.

5. In premise number 9 it is open to interpretation that "one example" of love is needed to determine the validity of this claim because there are other factors such as mental health background information that would be unknown.
Debate Round No. 1
Ari.Castillo

Pro

For premise 1, we will change sexual attraction to intimacy.
For premise 4, for the purposes of this argument, we are referring to romantic relationships. I am not arguing that this exclusive for romantic relationship.
For premise 6, social construction refers to concepts or categories created and developed by society or a dominant group of people. Social constructions are often viewed as obvious or natural and frowns upon the diversion of the construct. Ideas such as gender and race are socially constructed typically to maintain privilege or the elite, (i.e., White, male). Monogamy is socially constructed because it is not something that is biological or innate. In reference to animals, certain animals practice polygamy or multiple partners as well.
For premise 8, the fact that you have witnessed a certain form of polyamorous relationship does not discount the conclusion. Other examples of functional polygamy can be presented.
For premise 9, I will change the statement to "The many examples of polyamorous love i confirm the Possibility of such love."
deelux1775

Con

For premise number 6, I am going to debate that monogamy is a concept that evolved parallel to the evolutionary changes of human beings. Although not initially innate in our structural dna, human beings have evolved from the simplicity of polygamy out of necessity. And by necessity I am referring to polygamy for the success of procreation. Monkeys were involved in polygamy to ensure the success of their offspring. Male monkeys attack the offspring of other males but not their own. By females being promiscuous out of necessity it was both beneficial to "society" Animals are by nature, guilty of having social constructions of their own (without words of course). Female monkeys would in return receive gifts (other food items) from multiple mates. This does not equate to love but exemplifies beneficial functioning relationships, and this is encoded in dna. Therefore the idea of "love" is not encoded in human beings and could easily be mistaken for new aged empathy and compassion that is innate in animals.

For premise number 9 it is still in debate the mental health of ,and other underlying factors and tests that could determine an individuals subjective feelings. Feelings are subjective depending on earthly variables that can/do impact various mental states. There is no definitive way to determine that it is in deed love other than the word/s being used to express feelings that are distinguished according to mainstream society and are pre disposed to bias.

In conclusion love can not be polygamous.
Debate Round No. 2
Ari.Castillo

Pro

For premise 6, would you be arguing that polygamy is archaic and that individuals who do not conform to monogamy are not adequately evolved. It is true to this day monogamy-oriented people will search for monogamous relationships, however that does not set the standard for love or explain the desire for monogamy. Because more people now desire monogamy, can simply mean this is the evolved social construction of love, relationship status or monogamy.

For premise 9, it can also be argued that there is no definitive way to determine whether monogamous relationships truly experience love "according to mainstream society." Just as monogamous love does not need justification, neither does polyamorous love.
deelux1775

Con

Responding back to your initial definition of love of which is being defined as:

"intense feeling of deep affection. Romantic love requires sexual attraction (intimacy), attachment and sharing of thoughts and feelings similar to your beloved."
Although this may be true for some, there has not been any evidence put fourth that concludes that this is in fact the standard of being in love. It is seemingly that we are not coming to a consensus on the ideals of love.

According to you, If "for the purposes of this argument, we are referring to romantic relationships. I am not arguing that this exclusive for romantic relationship. all of the above are supposedly true for both" how exactly are we distinguishing the characteristics that define being "in love" from loving multiple people if they are indeed not different from other relationships of which the only difference is the physical action sex.

Two people and counting can participate in sex (which is a form of intimacy in the action itself; sharing bodily fluids and experiences where brain stimulation is at increased heights reverting back to instinctual needs to participate in sex for gains) his does not necessarily mean that if you have sex, share intimate moments, attachment, the sharing of thoughts and feelings similar to one you claim to love. does not mean that you are in love. For example A man could do all of the above stated with their wife and then go to work and do all of that with his secretary, tell her he loves her while returning home to his wife who he supposedly loves as well. Lets not confuse lust and selfishness with love.

The united states is one of the few countries in the world that object to the "social norms" or tradition of the world where polygamy is widely practiced.
It wasn"t until the 1900"s when women"s rights became legal; and like the rest of the world were subjected to the male dominated society.

Male dominance is typically structured by the man works to provide for the family and the woman takes care of the child(ren) in addition to taking care of the household. The woman is not typically the promiscuous wandered in the relationship. For example traditionally in other parts of the world women are killed for having multiple partners. This example verifies that there is a traditionally male dominated society in opposition to the United States, which historically does not conform to traditional society with a dominant female role. which insinuates "polygamists" are bonding in their fight against conformity where men would not have to declare a "love" to get multiple sexual partners.
Debate Round No. 3
Ari.Castillo

Pro

1.For the purposes of my argument, love is defined as intense feeling of deep affection. Romantic love involves the intersectionality of intimacy, (i.e., sexual relations or close familiarity that is produced through sharing of experiences, secrets, etc.), attachment (i.e., feelings of being in a partnership or relationship), and sharing of thoughts and feelings similar to your beloved, (i.e., sharing common goals or ideals to your partner).

2.Do not confuse this type of love for familial love or platonic love.

3.For the purposes of my argument, we are discussing the verb, "to love," rather than the noun, "in love."

4.Love is subjective and can be experienced and performed in many different ways through many different people. To argue the definition of love for one group would be to argue the definition of love for all social groups.

5.It is true that sexual relations do not equate for love, however sexual attraction and intimacy is typically what distinguishes romantic love from familial or platonic love.

6.Monogamy is a socially constructed concept, meaning it is created and developed by society or a dominant group of people. Social constructions are often viewed as obvious or natural and frowns upon the diversion of the construct in order to ensure the privilege and power of the elite. Monogamy is socially constructed because it is not something that is biological or innate.

7.Social constructions can and typically do change over time in order to keep up with the changing times and evolve to what is best for the elite. The fact that monogamy is now what is more widely accepted can simply mean this is the evolved social construction of love or relationship status.

8.Although monogamy seems to be the most represented and socially accepted form of intimate relationship in the United States, polygamy is still practiced worldwide and largely practiced in religions such as the Islamic religion, which is practiced globally.

9.People do practice polygamy and open relationships in which they claim to love both partners at once.

10.The many examples of polyamorous love confirm the possibility of such love.

11.There is empirical knowledge surrounding polygamy can discount any negative consequences that opposers of polygamy might argue.

12.It is possible to love more than one person at once.

The numbering of the premises have changed, as well as the premises themselves in order to best meet the objections and worries of opponent. I believe I have made my argument clear and the conclusion remains, it is possible to love more than one person at once.
deelux1775

Con

The argument at hand verifies
1.That romantic love is distinguished by intimacy, (i.e., sexual relations or close familiarity that is produced through sharing of experiences, secrets, etc.), attachment (i.e., feelings of being in a partnership or relationship), and sharing of thoughts and feelings similar to your beloved, (i.e., sharing common goals or ideals to your partner).
2.It is true that sexual relations do not equate for love, however sexual attraction and intimacy is typically what distinguishes romantic love from familial or platonic love.
3. This can be true between best friends or "friends with benefits" who sometimes engage in sexual activity and are connected in such ways, love each other but are not in love .
4.For the purposes of the argument discussing the verb, "to love," rather than the noun, "in love." would completely change to argument to a platonic connotation of love.
5.This is not exclusive for anyone in a relationship.
6.Love is subjective and can be experienced and performed in many different ways through many different people.
7."Love" is a popular word used to describe an unknown feeling
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.There is not enough evidence to suggest that two people can in fact be in love with more than one person
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.