The Instigator
Luljeta
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
BessPerezC
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is it possible to romantically love 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 2 votes the winner is...
Luljeta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 69271
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Luljeta

Pro

Pros




  1. Love is a deep romantic feeling and sexual attachment to someone.

  2. Romantic love relationships usually implies an expression of one’s strong romantic love, or one’s deep and strong emotional desires to connect with another person intimately or romantically.

  3. A person can be in love with their current partner but also with his/her ex girlfriend/boyfriend.

  4. Polygamy is to be married to more than 1 spouse at the same time.

  5. In Islam, polygyny is allowed upon the condition that the husband treats all his wives equally.

  6. A married man can be in love with his wife and also with his new mysterious girl. Acting upon your feelings cannot be called infidelity.

  7. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time.




Non-Controversial: Premises: 1,2,4 and 5 are all non-controversial. Premises 1,2,4,5 are all definitions. Premise 5 is based on the Islamic religion and is followed by Muslims and is only referring to them.



Controversial: Premises 3 is only a scenario and not necessarily the case in all romantic relationships. Premise 6 pertain to emotions and my feelings toward the subject.


BessPerezC

Con

1.I agree
2.I agree, however I don"t think that you can have that same desire for connection with more than one person simultaneously.
3.The love someone has for their current partner and the love they have for an ex partner are two different forms of love.
4.In connection to the previous premise, love in the present implies a burning desire on the inside to be with that person and love in the past tense implies having a deep and constant care for a person without the desire to be with them romantically.
5.Agreed
6.Treating people equally doesn"t mean that you love them equally or even care for them at all beyond sex.
7.I disagree, the love a man has for his wife is incomparable to the love or deep like he will have for a mistress.
8.Assuming premise 6 was in connection to premise 5, I disagree because unless you are in an open relationship then acting upon feelings you have for someone other than your partner is definitely infidelity.
9.Therefore, you cannot romantically love more than one person at the same time.
Debate Round No. 1
Luljeta

Pro


1. The definition of love was defined in premise no.1, which you have agreed on. A person can have strong desires for connection with more than 1 person, for example, it may happen that


one of the partners die, so eventually the widow or widower will find another partner and may experience the same feelings as he or she had with the previous partner. Simultaneously, you have that same desire for 2 people at the same time.


2. Infinity love is never guaranteed to anyone. One of the partners cheats on you, as a matter of fact you decide to leave him/her. But the fact that you left him or her doesn’t mean that you don’t love him anymore. You are still in love with that person. Meanwhile, you meet someone else and you fall in love with this person. So, it is the same form of love.


3. Past or present love is still called love. It will never change the meaning, name, time or form of love. I mean, the feeling that you have for someone, not the past or present tense but term love.


4. Many religious believe in polygamy, and according to polygamy all wives must be treated and loved equally. If a man would love only one wife could get married to only her but not to another 2-3 more wives, so that is not the case. So they get married to more than 1 wife and they do share the same love to all of them equally.


5. Infidelity means to have sex with another person, beside your wife. Cheating on your wife doesn’t mean that your unhappy or unsatisfied sexually. It may happen that the partner is addicted to sex, that is why you feel love for your mistress too.


6. While your argument can be true, I still have to disagree. Not all partners in open relationships do agree on a romantic or intimate relationship with another person is tolerated.


7. Therefore, it is possible to love more than 1 person at the same time


BessPerezC

Con

1.That is what I mean in the context of past and present love.
2.The love in which you have for your deceased lover is not the same love you will have for the next.
3.In addition, that would not be loving two people simultaneously because it is assumed that the person would have to be alive for it to be considered in this context.
4.If the person does not have to be alive, then it is assumed there is a grievance period that allows for a person to come to terms with the death of their lover and accept it.
5.By the time they move on to the next partner, the love they had for the deceased has changed into an incomparable form.
6.For your premise 2, again it is assumed that there is a grievance period; they aren"t just leaving one person and falling straight into the arms of another.
7.I disagree with your third premise, there is definitely a different type of love when it is in the present time and when you are looking back on the past loves you"ve experienced.
8.In reference to premise 4, just because you should do something doesn"t mean you will do it.
9.People who indulge in polygamy often have one person that they have a deeper connection and different kind of love with.
10.In reference to premise 5, I completely disagree.
11.When you cheat in a relationship it doesn"t automatically mean you love the other person you"re having sex with.
12.In fact, more often than not it"s just sex.
13.People don"t love their mistresses, they love the sex they have with their mistresses.
14.For premise 6, in order for the relationship to be open both partners have to agree to tolerate their partner having sex with other people.
15.Sometimes they set guidelines to insure that it is nothing but sex.
Debate Round No. 2
Luljeta

Pro

1. Sometimes, this is where life and future can bring us to, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that if one of the partners dies and you fall in love with another person, still doesn’t mean that person who died must be alive in order to be considered in this context. If this is what you believe this does not mean that this include all the people. People do have different opinions for this case.

2. There are some people that do not accept the death of their ex lovers. As I stated in previous premise, if this is what you believe, does not include all the society members. So, this is not the case.

3. The word eventually means period of time in which many things can happen. If one of the partners dies early than expected, eventually you will find another person to be in love with. This may take long time, probably years until you find the person you love. It is not about the timing, but the fact to find another person to fall in love with.

4. You are comparing past and present love between a couple? Past love, no matter how the experience was, it does leave an impression and also a memory. Present love can be a past love one day, too.

5. Polygamous relationships are true. As long as the man does share his love to all his wives, not only love but his opinion, problems, time and wealth, at this point he loves all of them equally. The perfect example of this is Sister Wives.

6. I do not justify cheating. Cheating is immoral, but for some others is not to be considered. It is common for many cultures to have couple mistress and there are still places in the world where this is widely accepted.

7. I have to disagree on your premise no.11. Having sex with your mistress does mean that you love her. The fact that you spend time, have a good time, makes you forget all about your problems means you do love her. So, there are other reasons beside just having sex with her.
8.Therefore, it is possible to love more than 1 person at the same time

BessPerezC

Con

1.The love you have for someone who is alive is incomparable to the love you have for someone who is walking the Earth alongside you; it can even be argued that you love the person who"s dead more because it wasn"t a choice in moving on, it was forced.
2.If you are not over a past lover, most people wouldn"t move on to another lover in an attempt to find meaningful, long-lasting love.
3.In your premise three, you have just agreed with the argument I made that the love for the two people isn"t simultaneous because there is a grievance period.
4.I"m saying that if you loved someone in the past, the love you have for them changes, the form changes and when you fall in love again it is not the same kind of love you have for an ex.
5.Arguing with someone, giving them money and hanging out with them does not entail love and it doesn"t promise it either.
6.I don"t disagree with premise six, however what I"m saying is that situations like those are not concrete proof of multiple loves because most of the time those relationships are based purely on sex.
7.Sex does not automatically mean love, people have "sex buddies" and "friends with benefits" all the time; those are relationships that are based solely on sex, as is the relationship between a married man and his mistress.
Debate Round No. 3
Luljeta

Pro


1. An adult does know what love means, and no adult can be forced to love another person, beside their partner that has passed away. Especially when you have experienced love before and now you are looking for another one you know what pure love mean. People decide what their choice will be and people have the right to love again and to be happy with the new partner. To be forced to love or to have sex with another person not voluntary is called harassment, which this is not the case.


2. The fact that some people do not accept the death of their ex lovers does not mean that will never fall in love again with someone else, unless you decide to attempt suicide.


3. In premise no.3 I have not agreed with your argument. Some people after breaking up with their partner do fall straight into the arms of another person. Those kind of people that decide to do so may like the idea of being with someone else or they are afraid to be alone, but some other may take it longer to make a decision to start dating another person and fall into his/her arms, but this does not mean or include all people., so this is not the case.


4. In premise no.4 love cannot change the form of love, it does not matter if this is about your ex or present lover. Some people are in love with their present partner but also they are obsessed with their ex, there are exceptions.


5. Communication is the best tool and between sister wives it works. A man that does share his love with his wives, it does show that he love them and cares about them at the same time. They do mean everything to a man and they are everything he needs to be happy and fulfilled.


6. So what you are saying is that it is ok for a man to have sex with a women, this kind of relationship is based purely on sex, does this proof that they truly love each other or is just sex? According to my opinion or yours having couple mistress may be wrong, but this is not about what we believe or think. What is right for me may be wrong for the other society or culture.


7. Therefore, you can love more than 1 person at the same time


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BessPerezC

Con

1.I don"t understand where harassment fits into this debate.
2.The point I"m trying to make is not whether people know love or not, but that if your lover dies and you move on, after going through a grievance period, you are not loving two people at the same time, you are loving one person from your past in a way that is different from the way you are loving the person in your present.
3.In reference to premise two, again you can fall in love again, but you will not be loving two people at the same time.
4.For your premise three, you said there would be a point in time where they would pick up the pieces of their life after the loss of their love, which could take "probably years."
5.In reference to your fourth premise, being in love and loving are two different things and so is being in love and being obsessed.
6.For your premise 5, I still think you"re equating things with love that shouldn"t be considered equal.
7.A mistress is not guaranteed to be loved, she is guaranteed to be slept with.
8.In reference to your premise six, what I"m saying is just because a man and a woman get together and have sex doesn"t mean they love each other.
9.Love in the present implies a burning desire on the inside to be with that person and love in the past tense implies having a deep and constant care for a person without the desire to be with them romantically.
10.Treating people equally doesn"t mean that you love them equally or even care for them at all beyond sex.
11.The love a man has for his wife is incomparable to the love or deep like he will have for a mistress.
Therefore, you cannot love more than one person at the same time.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
LuljetaBessPerezCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave some decent examples of multiple, simultaneous romantic relationships that Con was unable to rebut. Organization was a bit weak on both sides. "Premises" were more along the lines of individual examples. Makes the debate difficult to follow.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year ago
warren42
LuljetaBessPerezCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's example of a spouse dying and the widow(er) finding another love won him/her the match.