It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
Debate Rounds (4)
2. I want to restate what is mentioned in the topic question. We are specifically talking about romantic love.
3. Having romantic love with someone is defined as having a strong and passionate affection towards someone or something.
4. Never in the definition does it give a limit to how many people you can romantically love at once.
5. For example, one can have an old boy/girlfriend that you still romantically love, even if he/she are to never see them again.
6. He/she could have moved on to others, and eventually learn to love them, but they could still potentially harbor romantic, passionate feelings of love for their ex.
7. Having intercourse, or being with a person is not needed in order to romantically love them.
8. Conversely, although one may have intercourse with numerous people, they can still harbor romantic feelings for them all at once.
9. The idea of only having one lover, the idea of monogamy, is only popular because it is instilled in our society to get married and raise a family.
10. Many religions/cultures in history have practiced polygamy, which is the act of having multiple spouses.
11. Marriages today half of the time end up in divorce. 50% of the married population divorced in order to find a new lover, which shows the ability of a person to romantically love more than one person. That 50% also doesn't represent the number of people who actively cheat, or harbor romantic feelings for another person.
12. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
Non-Controversial: Premises 1, 2, 3, and 4 are either statements, clarifications, or definitions. Premise 10 is a statement.
Controversial: Premises 5 and 6 are pertaining to a hypothetical scenario in which someone loves multiple people. Premises 7, 8, and 9 are all ideas as to which why it is acceptable to have multiple romantic lovers at once. Premise 11 is an introduction of information. All of the premises listed maybe representative of my feelings because of the stance I'm taking so they possibly can be refuted.
2) I also agree on the clarification that we are talking about "romantic love" in this debate.
3) I agree that the definition of having romantic love is defined as having a strong passionate affection towards someone or something, however, it needs to be clarified that in this debate we are strictly speaking about people (human beings) and whether or not it is possible to love more than one person at once (romantically).
4) I agree with the point made that the definition doesn't define a limit to how many people you can love at once, however the definition doesn't say anything regarding whether it is possible or not, and therefore it simply is not a valid argument.
5) I do not agree with this argument that you can still have an ex-partner who you may no longer see and can still be romantically in love with them. I don't agree because if you are no longer seeing them again (as stated in premise 5) you cannot be romantically together with that person and have a true affection towards them still.
6) I do not agree with premise 6 because similarly to the previous argument, you can't truly be affectionate towards a ex-partner if you can no longer see them or make contact with them in some form.
7) I do agree that sexual intercourse or "seeing someone" isn't needed to romantically love someone, however It isn't possible to have a true sense of romantic love and a true feeling of affection towards someone in which you are in love with without doing so.
8) I agree you can have sexual relationships with people and have romantic feelings towards them, however this debate is regarding being romantically in love with multiple people, and not simply having romantic, sexual feelings towards them.
9) I do agree with the fact that monogamy is the social norm in the world we live in, however there is a reason it is a standard, and that is because you can only be romantically in love with one person at a time in order to be truly in love with that individual.
10) Yes, various religions and culture have practices polygamy, but that doesn't say/ prove anything regarding whether or not those individuals whom did were romantically in-love with more than one of their partners/ spouses.
11) i disagree. In the complicated world we live in today, sure it is common for domestic problems to arise and divorce rates to have increased significantly. However when a divorced individual moves on with another person it doesn't necessarily mean that they are now romantically in love with them. they very well could have been forced to try to move on to cope with their struggle and sadness that arose from the failing marriage with the person whom they were romantically in love with.
12) Therefore, you are not capable of loving more than one person at the same time
Non-Controversial: I agree with premise 1 and 2 being non-controversial. I do not agree with premise 3, 4 and 10 being non-controversial.
Controversial: I believe that all of the other premises are controversial because I don't agree with them and have evidence to support why I don't, as i have stated above.
4. I feel that you also prove your own argument invalid by saying that. There is nothing in the definition that says that it is impossible to be romantically involved with two or more people. The possibility of romantically loving more than one person simply comes down to each individual persons preference.
5. Having a romantic relationship with someone doesn't restrict that relationship from being one-sided. There is always the possibility that after a breakup between partners that one of them may still have romantic feelings for the other. Although a physical relationship maybe gone one can still have feeling of romantic love for an ex; even if they both have moved on to see other people. We defined romantic love as " having a strong passionate affection towards someone or something" in premise 3. No where in that definition does it say that the love has to be returned.
6. As stated in point 5 of this argument, a physical connection isn't needed in order for romantic feelings of love to be present in an individual. Your argument is subjective based on your viewpoint of a physical connection being needed in order to have romantic feelings.
7. A "true" sense of romantic love, in your opinion, is to have sexual relations with this person. However, we aren't debating the definition on what true romantic love is. We have already agreed to the definition, which I reflected back to previously in this round.
9. Once again, you're referring to your idea of "truly" loving a person. How would your definition of "true" love differ from the definition of romantic love that we have already agreed upon?
10. Wouldn't you agree that in most traditional marriages, to marry someone you would have to be romantically in love with them? Just because there are polygamists doesn't mean they can't harbor feelings of romantic love.
11. I would say that a better percent of marriages are had because of romantic love two people share, rather then one using another to cope with of a previous lover, for money reasons, etc. Also, if someone was to force themselves to marry in hopes of getting over a previous marriage, wouldn't they just be in denial of the romantic love they lost yet still have for their ex?
5. I agree that one of the individuals may very well still have feelings for the other in these circumstances, however just because they may still love the other individual doesn't necessarily mean that they are romantically in love with them. I believe the specific category of romantic love is deeper than just having feelings for another person and I believe to romantically be in love with someone there must be some sort of connection or interaction between the two individuals. Without any interaction it would essentially just be reminiscing on the past.
6. My response to premise 6 is the same as premise 5.
7. As I stated in my first premise 7 response, I agree with you that sexual interactions are not required nor the basis for being in love with someone, however I do think as stated in my last two premises that some sort of interaction is required to truly be romantically in love with someone. yes, we agreed to the definition, however the definition says nothing regarding what it means to be truly romantically in love with someone. And yes, this is based on my personal interpretation because we have not agreed upon what is required to truly be in love with someone yet thus far.
9. I concede with this premise because this was solely my opinion and I feel I didn't provide enough evidence to support it.
10. There are many instances where people are married with false intention and where marriages are formed without true feelings of love for one another. Arranged marriages, "gold diggers", and marrying someone to gain a position of power are some examples.
11. I feel as if your response supported my previous premise. As you said, "if someone was to force themselves to marry in hopes of getting over a previous marriage, wouldn't they just be in denial of the romantic love they lost yet still have for their ex?" would mean that they solely love the person whom they were once married to and are not truely in love with the person(s) in which they are trying to move on with.
7. We don't have a definition of what true love is, but I don't think that it is needed during this debate. We are debating whether or not it is possible for someone to romantically love more than one person. As you said, "truly" loving someone is different than romantically loving someone.
10. I am aware that there are marriages that are performed under the wrong pretenses; whether it be over money, or arranged marriages. However, these two examples are very rare compared to the marriages we see today in everyday society. People get married out of love and passion for one another more times than not. These same people at the astonishing rate of 50% are getting married for being unable to commit their love to one person.
11. I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. As I said in my previous response, I feel as if people more times then not get married out of love. Based on that it is more likely for someone to get divorced, and then remarry out of love for their new partner, yet still bare feelings for their ex.
7. I still think that in order for us to argue about if you can romantically love more than one individual it requires us to agree to a definition that truly loving someone requires at least a small amount of interaction between individuals. For example if a person who has went through a break up moves on and starts seeing somebody else whom they are in love with and is physically interacting with them then eventually there is an imbalance. Even though they may still love that ex, they aren't truly in love because that would eventually require mutual feelings or interaction as they are having with the person they are moving on with whom they are now in love with.
10. I agree that the majority of marriages may be justified and based around romantic love, however just because the majority are like that doesn't mean they are divorcing because they are unable to commit there love to only one person. There can still be many other reasons for a divorce/ breakup.
11. Just because they may still have feelings for their ex and love them doesn't necessarily mean they are romantically in love with them, even though they may have been in the past.
5. I am still a believer in the idea that a one sided love can exist. Although the feelings of are never present or no longer there for one individual, they certainly can be there for another. It's kind of like the riddle "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Just because no one is around to observe doesn't mean that it doesn't exist at all.
7. I understand your claim in that without physical interaction that true romantic love won't exist. I agree that physical interaction can help enhance a love, but it is not the sole reason as to why the love is there. Before a physical connection is made, there needs to be a mental and emotional connection already established. That is where, in my opinion, how true romantic love is started. If a lover has died, and one can no longer have a physical connection, does their love die with their partner?
10. I agree that there are many marriages in where there is no true love established, but the majority are not often that way. This still leads me to believe that many scenarios have existed in where a divorce takes place and the romantic love that one has had had for another still existed, even if that person has moved on to another. Love is not just something you can choose to be in one day and not the next. You never know when it'll hit you, or for how long that love will remain. All I know is that emotion is very strong, and will not wither even if attempts to move on are being made.
There have been premises that we have agreed upon, and definitions have been made for certain areas of love, however I still hold strong to my argument. The feeling of love is one of the strongest emotions a human can feel. It cannot be easily started, and likewise it cannot be easily extinguished. Throughout life, everyone will experience lovers, loves lost, or the lover that got away. These emotions , although often experienced in dismay, are being experienced nonetheless. This angst that one feels after a past love, is still love; which leads me to believe that it is possible to romantically love more than one person.
7. I see where you're coming from, however they may very well still love the other person who died but they simply cannot be in love with them because they are no longer able to be with each other, only the memories of that person and what they once had does.
10. Similarly to my previous premise, even though one person may still have feelings and the other may have lost them doesn't mean that person is in love with them, even though they may believe that they are and constantly be thinking of what they had in the past when there relationship actually existed physically.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.