The Instigator
SmirkyMK
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
oscanoak
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

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: 2/12/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 272 times Debate No: 69954
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

SmirkyMK

Pro

1. The definition of romantic love is to be understood and agreed upon by both parties. Love is defined in this case, as expressing mutual feelings of intimacy through unique connection and non-physical attraction, it is built on respect, and driven by honesty.

2. Infatuation is not the case. By definition, infatuation is an intense but short-lived passion/admiration for someone or something, which can be determined on fantasy and obsessive thought.

3. The love is not driven by lust nor does it in this case involve sexual relations, based upon what is confirmed as romantic love.

4. Connecting on a deeper level with a person and having a more emotional, mental, or spiritual attraction is defined as having a mutual perception of intimacy. Intimacy may evolve and claim dominant over the other factors of romantic love, respect and honesty.

5. There is no real restriction on how people approach love, there is no law. If one chooses to be with one partner or have multiple partners, it may be frowned upon, but at the end of the day it only concerns the person who's involved with the person who can treat love like this.

6. Developing feelings of any sort is uncontrollable, love is an expression that is uncontrollable and considered to be universal. If it is suppressed, it is not honest and true, which is unfair to both oneself and the partner.

7. Polygamy, by definition, is the practice/custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. It is a natural/open term which has been used in practice by many people in most societies, for many years. This form of relationship is honest and not considered to be cheating.

8. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

Non-controversial:

Premise 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are non-controversial. Premise 1 is the statement claiming ground on what is agreed upon to be defined as romantic love. Premise 2 is the definition of infatuation and premise 7 is the definition of polygamy, both related to my debating side. Premise 3 a clarity, stating that lust is not a factor in this case, and sexual relations are not necessary in all romantic love relationships. Premise 5 is a fact, simply understood.

Controversial:

Premises 4 and 6 are considered debatable.

4. Intimacy claims dominant over the other factors (respect and honesty), having a greater effect on any relationship. It may also clarify where romantic love lies, with which partner, through how high the level of intimacy is with one partner opposing with the other(s).

6. This is based on how people may interpret this in a certain situation. Suppressing certain feelings may or may not be fair to oneself and the partner, given the situation. Controlling one"s feelings is possible to an extent, but it may not be in the beginning, and self-control needs practice.
oscanoak

Con

1.) It is not possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time.

2.) I agree with your first premise because I believe that is the definition of what romantic love is.

3.) Monogamous relationships involve having only one spouse or significant other at once. Most religions and cultures accept this type of relationship.

4.) Being monogamous builds a strong trust between the two parties involved in the relationship.

5.) Because more than two people are involved in a polygamous relationship, the trust is now undermined by sharing that trust with a third party.

6.) Love should have a foundation of trust and openness between two people because by adding the factor of a third party, it destabilizes the relationship by introducing feelings of jealousy, danger, and betrayal.

7.) Therefore, it is only possible for an individual to be in love with one person at a time.

Non-Controversial:

Premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not debatable. Premise 1 is just a statement I am introducing. Premise 2 is an agreement that both parties share on what the definition of romantic love is. Premise 3 is my definition of monogamy. Premise 4 is a fact based the definition of monogamy that I'm defending and cannot be refuted.

Controversial:

Premises 5 and 6 are considered debatable.

5.) Although the trust can be undermined, it is still possible that it won't be.

6.) Feelings of jealousy and betrayal does occur when a monogamous relationship adds a third party at any capacity, but as long as the two original partners agree to accept the third person in the relationship, those feelings should concede.
Debate Round No. 1
SmirkyMK

Pro

1.) I disagree. It is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. Romantic love is when a person exposes his/her feelings through self-expression and personality, attracting more than one person. This person can attract and accept more than one person in his/her love life.

4.) I agree with the fact that trust is built on a monogamous relationship, but there could always be a situation in which one partner simply changes their views on their partner or what love really means to them, and they involve another person in their lives at that point. Monogamy can turn into polygamy, it is possible.

5.) Polygamy reflects on openness; Trust is stronger in a polygamous relationship because all romantic partners are aware of how their love is being spent, and they are fine by it.

6.) Love partners are understanding of each other, although feelings and emotions get the best of us because we are human after all, these feelings will not ruin relationships that are open and clear on what everyone gets out from it.

7.) To romantically love more than one person means to live life in the moment and give as much feelings of love to as many people as possible. This is actually how some people live and what some people actually do believe.
oscanoak

Con

1.) Self-expression, romantic love, and polygamy are three different entities. A person can express themselves without the aspect of romantic love. Romantic love is much more than just self-expression, and it doesn't always have to include more than two people. This new definition of romantic love that you mentioned is a bit odd to me. Anyone can expose their feelings and personality to anyone; that's a common social tendency as human beings in modern society. I can express my personality and feelings to my friends but that doesn't mean I want to have a romantic relationship with any of them. This definition sounds a lot like a platonic love, which is possible to have with more than one person; romantic love however, is not.

4.) Just because one person can change their views from monogamy to polygamy doesn't always mean that the other partner will also. As I mentioned before, a relationship builds on trust, but it also builds on understanding and agreement. If someone agrees to be in a monogamous relationship they agree to be with that other person only. I agree that it is possible for someone to change their minds in the future, but everyone has a different outlook on their preferences and it doesn't always have to end with including a third person. Relationships don't work that way. If a person really cared for their partner, they wouldn't completely change the relationship just because of their own selfishness.

5.) I disagree. Polygamous relationships always comes with a feeling of jealousy and anger regardless of their trust or what they've agreed to in the beginning. People participating in polyamorous practice are sharing each other and it's not possible for all partners to be loved equally. Trust is stronger in a monogamous relationship because there is no sharing involved; Partner A has Partner B and Partner B has Partner A. All the love and affection is split evenly between the two partners.

6.) These feelings actually can ruin relationships because of the fact that we're human. Although people can agree to be in a polygamous relationship doesn't mean that the feelings will just go away. Anyone can get jealous of another person, anyone can feel danger in a relationship and anyone can be betrayed by others. Just because a polygamous relationship and it's terms may seem clear at first, doesn't mean the person will actually go through with it to the end.

7.) You can't give feelings of romantic love and call that a relationship, it needs to be reciprocated. Otherwise, that's just a crush. The goal of a polyamorous relationship isn't to just find as many people as possible and love them, there's way more to it. This other definition of polygamy is also weird. Does that imply that if you are not romantically involved with more than one person then you aren't living life? Sure, some people actually live that life, but that doesn't make polygamy acceptable or possible.
Debate Round No. 2
SmirkyMK

Pro

1.) Romantic love is much more than self-expression, but it begins with personality and self-expression, attracting certain others. Platonic love is having an emotional and spiritual relationship between persons, not involving sexual desire, specifically. As mentioned before, romantic love in this case does not involve driven lust or sexual relations, and it is possible to have romantic love for more than one person. You are thinking of a platonic relationship, which involves friends, but platonic love is different, and we are discussing how self-expressing leads to romantic love, not platonic interest.

4.) There are people who practice monogamy and there are people who practice polygamy, that"s just how reality is. People are equal and unequal in certain senses, people are compatible with some but not with others, romantic love is changing and unchanging just as people who express their love are constantly changing as well. Agreements, like trust and loyalty break, all the time, and what is broken down can be rebuilt by another romantic love who was involved before, during, or after a current romantic relationship. All of these scenarios are true and possible. Correct, relationships usually don"t end where a third person is involved, but because people change, it wouldn"t matter how a relationship ends, under whatever circumstances or issues, it just does because people constantly change and figure out how to eventually recover and adapt to other things.

5.) In premise 5, this may be true, but this can also be true in a monogamous relationship. In a monogamous relationship, there"s more of a fear of cheating on one another, which these feelings invoke, whereas in a polygamous relationship cheating is not much of an issue.

6.) Again, these feelings (jealousy, etc) can occur in a monogamous relationship as well. Both parties of a monogamous relationship don"t have to stick out to the end even if the terms seem clear at first. There are higher consequences for cheating, getting tired of one another, etc in a mono relationship rather than a poly relationship.

7.) This is my claim of possibility, stating that in fact people do live by this understanding of romantic love, whether it is acceptable or not, it is possible and true. One can indeed put their love "out there" and in return receive many admirers who share the same feelings and ideas, equally. I never mentioned that the goal of a polygamous relationship is to "find" or search for as many people possible to love, other people will show mutual interest for the romantic love being expressed; Love is not sought, it just happens and it is uncontrollable. A crush carries the same meaning as infatuation, and as mentioned before, infatuation is not apart of our agreed definition of what romantic love is in this case. Also, it does not imply that not being romantically involved with more than one person means one isn"t living life, it means to have the freedom and allow oneself to romantically love people who connect on the same level with the person who believes love means such, in the moment.

8.) Intimacy is essential in a romantic love relationship, it can be something shared with more than one person. Someone can have an intimate connection with more than one person at a time, it"s possible. Romantic love is easy to develop on feelings and emotions that are uncontrollable.

9.) In a romantic relationship, if the case may be that one looses love for one person, it does not mean love is lost for the other. It is honest to experience the factors of romantic love with more than one person at the same time.

10.) Feelings of love may still remain for any ignited romance between partners, no matter how much someone denies it or tries to escape what is the truth. One can love more than one person simultaneously, because feelings are uncontainable.
oscanoak

Con

1.) You've missed what I've been trying to point out completely. I understand the definition of platonic love, and I know that platonic love and romantic love are two different things, but that's the point. They are two completely different things. If platonic love is self-expression in an emotional and spiritual way amongst friends yet romantic love is technically the same thing in this case then how are you completely sure that a person is not just platonically loving more than one person rather than romantically loving them all? Either way, regardless whether the definitions in this case are the same or not, it does not properly support your argument on how romantically loving more than one person is possible.

4.) You're not making sense in this argument at all. You also missed my point. People change, you have also stated and agreed to that, but just because one person in the relationship changes, does not also mean that the other person will change as well. Lots of people change, you're absolutely correct but not everyone can change the same way at the same time. Your first sentence also doesn't match with your whole statement in this paragraph. Just because some people practice monogamy and others practice polygamy doesn't support your argument on how people change or how romantically loving more than one person is possible.

5.) That's actually the opposite. Because polygamy is more than two people, the risk of cheating is increased because of the fact that there is more people involved. Just because the risk of cheating exists in monogamous relationship doesn't necessarily mean that it's more of a fear in it.

6.) Can you please explain why polygamous relationship doesn't have a higher consequence of getting tired or cheating because it doesn't support the argument.

7.) That's wrong, you stated in the previous round that loving more than one person means to spread love to as many people as possible. Therefore, would make it seem that finding a lot of people is the goal. Also, I didn't associate a crush with infatuation. As mentioned in our agreed definition, infatuation is derived from obsessive and fanatic thoughts which is not the same thing as a crush. A crush is just a bit of interest of possibly loving a new person romantically, which in my case makes sense if I'm explaining how having crushes on a bunch of people isn't what romantic love is. Actually, in this case, love can be a controllable thing since people choose to be in a monogamous and polygamous relationship. It can also be controllable when it comes to choosing who to love, the thing that is actually uncontrollable is crushes. Maybe having crushes on multiple people is a possible thing but loving more than one person is not possible.

8.) You don't have enough reasons to support this argument. You can't just say it's possible without explaining why it is. Intimacy is essential in a relationship but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's able to happen in a polygamous relationship.

9.) This statement makes absolutely no sense so I choose not to retaliate against it.

10.) Feelings are uncontainable yes, but there is such thing as self-control. There's also such thing as morals. Just because people develop feelings (crushes) on a bunch of people doesn't mean the person has to act upon every single feeling for every single person. Polygamous relationships are morally wrong and just because feelings are uncontrollable doesn't mean we have to comply with them. It also doesn't support your point on how romantically loving more than one person is possible.
Debate Round No. 3
SmirkyMK

Pro

1.) Romantic love is defined in this case, as expressing mutual feelings of intimacy through unique connection and non-physical attraction, it is built on respect, and driven by honesty.

2.) Lust nor having sexual relations are involved in this case of romantically loving people, based upon what is defined as romantic love. This is understood and accepted by my opposer.

3.) Connecting on a deeper level with a person and having a more emotional, mental, or spiritual attraction is defined as having a mutual perception of intimacy. Intimacy may evolve and claim dominant over the other factors of romantic love, respect and honesty.

4.) There is no real restriction on how people approach love, there is no law. If one chooses to have multiple partners, it may be frowned upon, but at the end of the day it only concerns the people involved. This statement still stands, because it claims the fact that just because something is frowned upon by others, doesn"t mean that romantic love for people just stops due to the opinion of outsiders.

5.) To explain what was requested from my opponent"s Premise 6 in round 3, when compared to a monogamous relationship, a polygamous relationship doesn't have the higher consequence of cheating or losing interest/getting tired of one another, because of the fact that in a polygamous relationship, those involved are completely open about romantically sharing each other, and they are fine by it. If there"s an agreement and acceptance of how romantic love is being spent, there is less of a chance that there will be cheating. Also, those in a polygamous relationship may be less likely to grow out of their life style, because they are enjoying how they choose to love. On the other hand, in a monogamous relationship, there"s a possibility that one partner may be fading, getting less attracted to their romantic partner, testing commitment.

6.) My argument that it is possible for a person to romantically love more than one person simultaneously still stands. Premises that I have outlined in the first round, remain true even when my opponent tried to contradict them. To prove my point with what my opponent said about crushes in her round 3 response (premise 7), if having a crush on multiple people is possible, then it is indeed possible to have the potential of romantically loving more than one person at once. A crush leads to a potential for romantic love.

7.) To correct my opponent on her defense in round 3 (premise 10) , if romantic feelings are contained by self-control, then there will never be a potential for romantic love. Since this argument is based entirely on the subject of romantic love, having absolutely no potential for romantic love is bad. Other positive consequences of containing feelings of romantic love by self-control, such as never exposing oneself truthfully to another, such as attaining the quality of patience, are unacceptable in light of the negative consequences of containing feelings of romantic love by self-control. Thus, one should not let romantic feelings be contained by self-control. To prove myself even further, this act allows one to surrender to romance, letting an admirer fall straight into the arms of another.

8.) Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
oscanoak

Con

1.) Monogamous relationships still stands true and dominant in society over polygamy and is more accepted in most religions.

2.) Monogamy still builds a stronger bond of trust over those in polyamorous relationships.

3.) Because my opponent has failed to prove their point on how the trust is better in a polyamorous relationship, my point stating how a relational trust is undermined by sharing that trust with a third person still stands. Simply stating that polygamy has a better trust bond than monogamy without proof doesn't necessarily means that it's true.

4.) Love should have a foundation of trust and openness between two people because by adding the factor of a third party, it destabilizes the relationship by introducing feelings of jealousy, danger, and betrayal. This point still stands because simply stating that monogamous relationships have these negative feelings as well without backing it up with reasons doesn't make my opponent correct.

5.) In response to the reasons mentioned by my opponent in premise 5 in the 4th round, people in polygamous relationships don't automatically stay happy and won't be open to change. It's the same thing. It can go both ways. People in polygamous relationships can be unhappy and have a fading love while monogamous relationships can be romantic and plentiful. Also, there is no proof or facts that people in polygamous relationships are less likely to grow out of their lifestyle. Which is another reason why my original premise 6 still stands.

6.) Therefore, it's impossible to romantically love more than one person at once.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.