The Instigator
briannajudd
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
shantellhawthorne
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is it possible to love more than one person

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: 413 times Debate No: 70093
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

briannajudd

Pro

Romantic love-is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment.
1.The definition of love as previously agreed upon.
2.Being in love, romantically, does not mean having a relationship excusive to that one person.
3.Love is dependent upon the person experiencing it therefore what feels like love to one person may not necessarily look like love to another.
4.People is polygamous and polyamorous relationships equally if not more happy as people in monogamous relationships.
5.Love is brought about in different ways and people have different reasons for loving other people which allows for more than one romantic partner.
6.There is nothing regulating what does and what does not constitute as love or how many people one can love.
7.Therefore, it is possible to love more than one person.
Non-controversial premises-
1.Definition already agreed upon
2.Being in love, romantically, does not mean having a relationship excusive to that one person " I feel like my partner can see that not in every situation is there an allowance for a relationship to occur.
3.Love is dependent upon the person experiencing it therefore what feels like love to one person may not necessarily look like love to another- I feel this is covered within the definition of love.
4.People is polygamous and polyamorous relationships equally if not more happy as people in monogamous relationships " I feel my partner will agree to this.
6. There is nothing regulating what does and what does not constitute as love or how many people one can love " I feel my partner will agree to this because it does not go against our definition of love.

Controversial premises-
5.My partner can argue that other feelings are often mistaken for different "ways" of loving someone however it can also be argued that there are some instances where this can be the case such as sexless relationships and relationships built on sex.
shantellhawthorne

Con

Con
Romantic love-is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment.

1)The definition of love agreed upon.
2)Romantic love can not be shared with more than one person because the same "in love" feeling can not be duplicated if its real.
3)You can"t be in love with more than one person because once you start to become in love with someone else, the love you felt with the original person weakens or dissolves completely, now making it not the same as being in love.
4)With love comes passion and you can only have fire-burning love with one person. Anything else would just be a very strong feeling, which is a far cry from being the same as being in love.
5)If you have the feeling to fall in love with someone else than the original person did not fulfill the areas that you needed meaning that its not love because love equals fulfillment.
6)Therefore it is impossible to romantically be in love with more than one person.

Non- Controversial Premises-
"Definition of love agreed upon.
"Premise 1: The same type of in love feeling cannot be duplicated. -My opponent will understand that with the concept of love and the complexity of it is rare and can not be summoned upon twice to be shared with more than one person
"Premise 2: The in love feeling that you feel with one person can only be with that person and if you love somebody else, that means you"re falling out of love with other person. " My opponent will agree that its logical enough to say that once you try to be in love with another person, the love you felt for the first person fades so its no longer being in love with two people.
"Premise 4: If you fall in love with someone else, that means that the first person did not fulfill your needs and love equals fulfillment. " My opponent will agree that in a relationship you must have fulfillment and if you go seeking it somewhere else you were not really in love in the first place.

Controversial Premises-
"Premise 3: With love comes passion and you can only have passion for one thing. " My opponent might find this controversial because passion can mean many things and not all love may come with passion
Debate Round No. 1
briannajudd

Pro

2) People assume different relationships with people allowing them to be built on different aspects and values. So, the same feeling of love can never be duplicated. But does that actually mean it"s not real?
3) If that"s so then do people ultimately get into love triangles? If your third premise true then this would not be the case.
4) Passion can accompany love; however, that is not always the case. Also according to our agreed upon definition romantic love can exist without it.
5) Please explain how love equals fulfillment. Feelings of fulfillment are not a part of our definition.
shantellhawthorne

Con

Answers:

2) It is true that "People assume different relationships with people allowing them to be built on different aspects and values" that you have stated, but In my premise it states that a genuine REAL IN LOVE feeling can not be duplicated. The specific feeling of being romantically in love with another is something that can not be the same as the original making it from removed from being real. Its almost like having a duplication of the constitution, it may look real and seem real, but its not real.
3) Love triangles do not necessarily mean that the person is in love with both parties they could have held on to the other partner for a plethora of reasons. Just because people are in a love triangle does not mean it is a solidified enough reason to sayr that someone can be in love with more than one person.
4) Passion and very strong feeling are synonomous and that we did include in our definition therefore your reasoning is invalid.
5) Being in love equals fulfillment. Meaning you are being filled with those feelings of strong attachment and pleasure both things that are in fact in our definition of love !

Questions for you
2) Why does being in love not mean an exclusive relationship with two people? this premise is vague and offers no real reason to why my premises are false.
3)But if we agreed upon the definition of what love is, then isn't that what love should look like ? if thats not the case, then all your premise of love must be false as well because they might not "look" like love to someone else
4) Just because people in polygamist relationships are happy does that really mean their in love ? love and happiness are two different things. just because they are happy in their relationships does not mean they are in love with each party in the relationship.
5) again does that mean in love ? yes people have different reasons for loving other people but them having that same in love feeling with each person is a different story.
6) just because something doesn't constitute it, does not mean it is possible?
Debate Round No. 2
briannajudd

Pro

2) But that is exactly what I am trying to argue. According to your premise every time you fall in love it would essentially be the same which is not true. But that"s not the case because everyone is different and you fall in love with them for different reasons. Also it"s almost as if you"re assuming that you can only fall in love once so this stirs up a few questions. What if one was to break up with their boyfriend or girlfriend and eventually get a new one would you feel the same for them as you felt for your old boyfriend or girlfriend? Who is regulating what love is real and what isn"t?
3) But that can be the case as I said before there is no test or specific person who will judge one"s love.

In response
2)What I mean is that one could be in love with someone but not be in a relationship with them or be in love with someone and be in an open relationship with them.
3)To explain, people don"t always express themselves in the same way so to onlookers it may not seem like love but in fact is by definition.
4) In simpler terms our definition says basically that romantic love is expressed happiness due to attachment and attraction. Therefore it is completely possible for people in polygamous relationships to be in love.
5) Yes I mean in love. But, people don"t fall in love the same way each time. People are different, express themselves differently, have different likes and dislikes and preferences for partners. So, the feeling of love is different each time.
6) But, if there is no particular limit on something it"s just as equally possible as it is impossible.
shantellhawthorne

Con

2) To clarify, Duplication meaning having a simultaneously replica of being in love not meaning the notion of falling out of love with another than falling in love with someone else. That is a total opposite spectrum of love that can not be used as an example in this argument for the fact that they are based off two separate things. Again why did we even create a definition of what love is if no one can say what love is ? Wouldn't our whole debate itself be invalid if we ourselves didn't create a definition of love ?
3) The premise is not to judge to explain the logics of why one cannot love another. I simply said that love triangles down not mean each party is in love with one another they can be in the relationship for different reasons.

2) That is true but it still did not point out how you can love people at the same time. The problem is not whether you can be in love with someone if you are in a relationship or not, its if you can be in love with more than on person at the same time.
3) True but again your argument was that people can not define what love is yet we have done the sam exact thing you have argued against.
4) Polygamy does not equal in love. Though it may be possible it may also very well not be possible.
5) Yes, It is different but that doesn't infer that it happens at the same time!
Debate Round No. 3
briannajudd

Pro

1.I still agree with the definition of love as previously agreed upon.
2.Being in love, romantically, does not mean having a relationship exclusive to that one person.
3.Feelings experienced during cannot be duplicated.
4.Love is dependent upon the person experiencing it therefore what feels like love to one person may not necessarily look like love to another. This is also due to the fact that people express themselves differently.
5.Love is brought about in different ways and people have different reasons for loving other people which allows for more than one romantic partner. This includes variations in personalities, likes and dislikes, and presences for romantic partners.
6.There is nothing regulating what does and what does not constitute as love or how many people one can love.
7.Therefore, it is possible to love more than one person.
I replaced server premises and modified others to make my argument clear and understandable.
shantellhawthorne

Con

1)Still the definition of love agreed upon.
2)Romantic love can not be shared with more than one person because the same "in love" feeling can not be duplicated if its real.
3)You can"t be in love with more than one person because once you start to become in love with someone else, the love you felt with the original person weakens or dissolves completely, now making it not the same as being in love. To continue I do not mean that you can never fall in love again. It basically means that at you can not share it at the same time with two people. Of course you can love two people but separately at different times.
4)With love comes passion and you can only have fire-burning love with one person. Anything else would just be a very strong feeling, which is a far cry from being the same as being in love. Passion coincides with the "strong feeling we described in our definition of love, though my opponent believes that there can be no set definition of love, we can so very well make a definition of what the foundation of love should consist of.
5)If you have the feeling to fall in love with someone else than the original person did not fulfill the areas that you needed meaning that its not love because love equals fulfillment. Though the definition we created did not include the word fulfillment itself, it did include strong feelings and attachment, the exact things you need to be filled with.
6)Therefore it is impossible to romantically be in love with more than one
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.