Is the idea of having one partner for life still a realistic one?

1. clarify what is meant by "no longer feasible in status quo"

2. This does not mean that the couples are not committed to each other or such. It is possible to be polygamous and committed, because people are committed in different areas.

2.1. what are these "different areas"? how is this linked to the idea of being realistic?

3. Monogamy is simply unrealistic for some people. For example, in modern days, people tend to pursue other arrangements such as polygamy or open relationships. These arrangements allows couples to chose their own boundaries and rules.

3.1. Too vague - Why do people want to opt for 'other arrangements'? what is an 'open relationship'? What do you mean by "couples can choose their own boundaries and rules?" what makes these alternatives more realistic than having one partner for life?

4. Thesis statement: Ideally, having one partner for life is the ultimate utopia but realistically speaking, with the immense cultural influences especially from the West, this idea is no longer feasible in status quo.

5. Opposing Argument 1

6. Supporting Argument 1

6.1. Many people are still willing to commit to one partner because of traditional beliefs and cultures

6.2. Example: Christianity does not promote polygamy as they believe that a marriage should be shared by a man and woman alone

6.2.1. Elaborate: WHY does the religion instill this belief in people?

6.3. It would not be easy to build long lasting relationships if you have more than one partner.

6.4. There can be many problems a couple face after marriage, and with more than one partner, it can further complicate things - hence not realistic

6.4.1. we should not restrict the idea of having one partner for life to just marriage - there are people who commit to one partner despite being unmarried.

7. Defining the Question/terms

7.1. 1. Solely the same partner for life

7.1.1. Realistic

7.1.1.1. It is not completely unrealistic either as we can’t simply say: having one partner for life is not realistic. For centuries, we have had many couples whom have remained loyal to one another for many years. It has evolved into a stable family unit rather than a polygamous-type family unit. The monogamous family unit is possible and stable.

7.1.2. Not realistic

7.1.2.1. - Partner may change in terms of character - Partner may abuse the other - What if the couple no longer loves one another

7.1.2.1.1. => What would be the point of being ‘partners for life’? This would only result in unhappineess, suffering and bitterness

7.1.2.1.2. Speculative - where can you find proof that one partner may abuse the other in the long run? must a person's change in character always be for the worse? can't a couple love each other more over time?

7.2. 2. one partner at a time for life

7.3. The group has to pay attention to the keywords "still realistic" - "still" suggest that there is possibly a change in mindsets and attitudes over time towards the idea of having one partner for life, whereas for "realistic" - what are your premises for arguing that something is realistic or not?

8. Of these people, there are relationships which have worked, or have not worked at about the same rate as monogamous relationships have. Ultimately, it is all dependent upon the maturity, honesty and communication skills of the parties involved.

8.1. who are these people? where did you derive these findings from? how does this finding link back to the notion of the idea being realistic (or not)?

9. Supporting Argument 2

10. Overall feedback: - label the argument with the name of the member in charge of it - where is the conclusion? - key terms are not addressed sufficiently - Not enough depth to the points - the mind map looks like a half-hearted piece of work and lacks a neat and coherent organization

11. New node