The Instigator
DanSmyth17
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Longo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It's possible to romantically 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: 2/7/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 278 times Debate No: 69609
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

DanSmyth17

Pro

1. Romantic love is strictly a passionate, intimate love between people.
2. In this debate we are strictly talking about romantic love, and nothing that can be confused with it, such as platonic love.
3. There is never a given restriction on the number of people one can romantically love.
4. Also, there is no need of physical contact in order for a romantic love to be present between people. Having intercourse or even seeing their mate is not needed in order for someone to have romantic love.
5. Romantic love can exist past death. The death of a partner doesn't mean the love for them also dies.
6. If a widow were to ever move onto someone else, she would have both the love of the one she widowed and her new mate.
7. Monogamy is instilled in our society, so it is only natural to abide by societies rules.
8. Likewise is the idea of adultery; it is only viewed at as bad because it is the societal norm.
9. Just because of these norms instilled in us from birth, we look at ideas of having multiple romantic partners to be immoral. However, it is in our nature as human beings to have multiple romantic partners over our lifetimes.
10. Therefore, anyone is capable of loving more than one person at once

Non-Controversial: Premise 1 is a definition for the debated topic and premise 2 is a clarification.

Controversial: Premise 3 is an observation made by looking at the definition of romantic love. Premises 4, 5, and 6 all pertain to the distance between partners. Even if there is no physical contact made with your partner a romantic love can still exist past physical relations. Premises 7, 8, and 9 are all my feelings on the idea of trying to make romantic love into monogamous relationships.
Longo

Con

1. I agree to our definition of romantic love, which is a "passionate, intimate love between people."
3. I agree to the premise you've presented. Although there is no restriction given to the amount of people involved in a romantic relationship it is only a distraction to have multiple romantic love interests. It cannot be true love without a commitment between partners to only have each other .
4. I agree to this premise. Physical contact is not needed in order to have romantic love with an individual. However, there must be some sort of passion between individuals in order for a romantic love to exist.
5. I agree to this premise. This does not mean someone is unable to forget about a previous lover of the past.
7. I would say that the idea of monogamy hasn't been embedded into our society by others. Instead, monogamy is a naturally occurring idea that is in our nature as human beings.
8. Ever since we were small children we have had dreams of growing up and having a family on our own. Having a family is from the idea of monogamy. Being with one person and raising a family together are concrete ideals throughout human history, and I think the world would be very different today if monogamy didn't exist.
9. Therefore, it isn't possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

Non-Controversial: Premise 1 is just an agreement to the definition we have established for romantic love.

Controversial: Premise 3 reflects on the idea of having multiple partners. In a case where that is true I feel as if you are never really concentrating on one person, thus never making a passionate connection associated with having a romantic relationship. Even if the relationship was physical too, it would simply be a hookup. Premises 4 and 5 have to do with instances where the partners are no longer physically together, and the love they shared can still be there or not. Premises 7 and 9 conflict with my opponents view on monogamy.
Debate Round No. 1
DanSmyth17

Pro

3. Just because a romantic love is being shared amongst multiple people doesn't make it an lesser than that of a single couple. The love is not divided into parts so small that it cannot be called love. Each love shared with an individual is their own, separate thing. The only variable on how powerful a love can be between two people are personalities of the two people together.
4. I agree to this premise
5. This is true. However, is a romantic love that is once had ever truly lost? It maybe an ex-lover, but that person still has shared some intimate and passionate moments with another, making their love for each other grow. Even if a couple has broken up and, and moved on, is that love still not there?
7. I disagree. As human beings, our nature is to find a mate in order to reproduce. It isn't to find your one true love and create a family with them. It is simply to reproduce and create offspring, no matter the number of people. If monogamy is really the correct way of life, why do we find ourselves attracted to different people everyday?
8. I will agree that monogamy has shaped the society we live in today, but it is not the natural way of how life is supposed to be.
Longo

Con

3. Although one may have equal love for their partners, do you think the partners would have equal love for each other. More often than not, a relationship in where there are more than 2 partners often has one partner not knowing about the other, which is adultery, or better known as cheating. This cheating if ever found would surely bring turmoil to every relationship involved, and potentially sabotage everything; making romantic love for more than 2 partners impossible.
5. Romantic love can be lost over time. I do not simply think that love just shrivels down until it is microscopic; it disappears. For romantic relationships that have ended decades ago; do you think both individuals could look at each other, say that they love each other, and truly mean it?
7. Attraction to others and monogamy are two entirely separate ideals. Attraction to multiple peoples physical appearances is undeniable. All humans find more than one person good looking. However, the idea of romantic love is far more than just skin deep. As we stated, a romantic relationship is "passionate, intimate love between people." Thinking someone is good looking doesn't take away that a a passionate, intimate connection is needed in order to love someone.
8. Could you picture a society today without monogamous relationships transforming into families that fill up every town?
Debate Round No. 2
DanSmyth17

Pro

3. There are relationships in where each member knows of one another, and approves of an open relationship. Many societies today have polyandrous relationships in where there is one husband, and multiple wives. The wives know each other and work together in order to create their own family. Although these relationships are few in number, they are still concrete examples of romantic love existing amongst more than 2 people.
5. Maybe they wouldn't mean it in the present, but in the past the love a couple shared had to have been real. I think that once that romantic connection has been made that it is then there within them for the rest of their lives. Just remembering a past love is proof of that.
7. Wouldn't you agree that a physical attraction must be present in order for romantic love to blossom? Otherwise it would just be a platonic relationship.
8. I know almost all societies today are made up of monogamous families, but are those participating in the romantic relationship really sold out for their partner? About half of the marriages today end in divorce; many of them because of a cheating member in a relationship, or the couple losing their romantic love that they once shared.
Longo

Con

3. Just because people are married doesn't mean that a true romantic love exists. Many of these marriages in where there are multiple spouses are most often because of religious or cultural views. It is not the persons will to have multiple spouses; it is simply the rule of wherever they are from. Romantic love can be created from that scenario, however I would find it impossible to find a romantic love between two people I possibly didn't even want to marry.
5. Remembering a past love is completely different than currently being in a romantic relationship. Reflecting on a past romance gives you insight on how it feels to be in love, yet isn't the same as currently being in love. One will always have memories of an ex and the love that they shared, however once the relationship is stopped and all contact has been cut off then the romantic love ends.
7. A physical attraction isn't needed in order for a couple to be romantically in love. Saying an attraction is needed is similar to saying sex is needed in order for a romantic relationship to take place. A physical attraction certainly helps a romantic love blossom, but it is not strictly needed in order to be in love.
8. I agree with your premise, but that is simply an example of a specific situation. A majority of the marriages today stem from true love and are still together because of the romantic love the couple shares.
Debate Round No. 3
DanSmyth17

Pro

1. Romantic love is strictly a passionate, intimate love between people.
2. In this debate we are strictly talking about romantic love, and nothing that can be confused with it, such as platonic love.
3. There is never a given restriction on the number of people one can romantically love. Although in the society we live in today is based on monogamous principles, I still believe that it is possible to have love for numerous people at once. The majority doesn't represent the entirety
4. There is no need of physical contact in order for a romantic love to be present between people. I continue o stand by this ideal.
5. The memory of a deceased lover is still love, although the partner is no longer there to accept the love and return it.
6. The same goes for a couple that has broken up, but one partner still yearns for the other. If one of them holds onto the romantic bond that joined the two in the first place then that love will always have a connection.
7. Monogamy is an ideal that our society is typically run around. However, there are many scenarios in where there are completely polyandrous relationships. Those relationships are the backbone of many religions and cultures.
8. Adultery, albeit bad or "taboo", happens all of the time in relationships where true love has been established. If one romantic love can be torn apart by loving another person, then that proves that humans were never meant to have monogamous relations in the first place.
9. Therefore, it is still possible to have a romantic relationships with more than one person.

I have agreed to some premises, but not enough to make me change my stance on the debate. With so many examples today of real world relationships in where there are multiple partners, it's hard to say that romantic relationships between more than 2 people isn't possible. Whether it be polyandrous relationships, or others where a partner is seeing another, these are all examples.
Longo

Con

1. I still agree to our definition of romantic love, which is a "passionate, intimate love between people."
3.. There is no restriction given to the amount of people involved in a romantic relationship, but a romantic connection cannot be made unless there are only 2 people. If there are any additional partners it would over complicate the entire relationship, which in most cases would then end abruptly.
4. Physical contact isn't needed for a romantic connection, but most definitely enhances any romantic connections that have already been established.
5. Love for a deceased partner can last a very long time, but not forever. That love can fade over time.The widowed partner can make a choice to hold onto that lost love forever or to leave it behind for a new one
6. Once a couple has broken up the decision has been made to no longer pursue a romantic relationship. Unless started again, the romanticism of the relationship is done and it becomes strictly platonic.
7 and 8. I agree with both premises presented for the most part. I only disagree with the notion that humans aren't cut out for monogamous relationships. If anything I would say that it is the ideal relationship to have. Liking the idea of monogamy is subjective to each person.

After all of the premises presented to me I would change sides of the argument if I had the opportunity. My opponent provided many premises that I have seen and experienced in my own life to know that it is possible to have a romantic relationship with 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.