Every Intellectual Truth must be believed

Rebuttals: First off the point with emotional decisions being negative was brought up for clarifications purposes. Seeing as you are pro , I would have expected an opening argument better defining the terms of this debate. Seeing as you made no arguments, or very many terms to define the debate as, I didn't quite understand if this topic was supposed to include that people choose to make negative decisions with their emotions rather than the intellectual. 1. Fictional story. Here my opponent agrees that in contexts of a relationship where (as my opponent would define it) love may be a faulty word, that intellect would overrule emotions. Given that the topic states "Every intellectual truth must be believed" we must assume that what the pro is trying to accomplish, is proving a point that in all cases, the truth must be believed by the individual. Given that my opponent concedes to a very direct application where a truth is believed by an individual, and followed according to the scenario, we must look at how this has proven that while intellectual truth are held, the are followed as well as believed. He gives an counter argument that a family member would be differential to a relationship, but I in know way could see too much of a difference. If a person were in an abusive situation with a family member, it's not only their intellect, but their natural instinct that pushes them out of their environment. It happens all the time actually! When children are abused, they have to make that first move to be taken out of their abusive environment. The statistics show that obviously alot of these moves had been made. http://pediatrics.about.com... And if the intellectual decision wasn't made, then the statistics wouldn't even exist! This just shows that emotional decisions can be hard, (yes we all know that) but humans still go with their gut on most things in order to prevent being hurt, or submitting to doubtful situations. 2. Nonsensical emotions. Yes this is the question of the debate, is to determine whether humans are likely to make these decisions. And my point was that it is extremely more likely. If I know a poisonous apple is bad, I'm not going to eat it. And if I do, then that was a bad decision. So we can automatically assume that people who make poor decisions based on emotional whims believed that the decision was poor while still acting on that specific decision. My goal for the debate is to say that all humans aren't likely to make that mistake. Oh, sure, we could find examples of a few people who have, but as for the majority, I think it's safe to say that most would choose going with the believed prospect of knowing their decision was wrong, thus not making said decision. Thus, we must see the logic this proves in favor of con. "I will say that any bias that is a component of the person's world view, and is a relatively constant is included in the claim." However the fact that world views differ so much, almost begs us the question of how make an inference off of just one emotional bias such as the "female discrimination" example that you brought up? Also the example is almost useless in terms of logic. Had their not been a significant number of people to support the woman's right movement, the movement would have never passed through our democratic society. Given that their was a more overwhelming population against woman discrimination than there were FOR it, we cannot say that emotional whims over rule the intellectual prospect that discrimination is relatively bad to our society. Which, again, is why the laws were passed. Your emotional bias you apply to these men, count for almost nothing, as the population against adversity widely overwhelms the population conceding to emotion. Which again shows that intellect is followed more thoroughly than emotional whims. You say specifically that people "act" on these emotions which you think proves your point. I'm sure we all know people "act" on nonsensical emotions. My goal is to prove that more people than not will choose to act off of intellectual knowledge rather than the opposite. "Another example would from smoking where people aware of the detrimental effects smoking has on their health still smoke. Though I do acknowledge that in the case of smoking it isn't an emotional bias per se. still it is an example of a case where intellect does not win the day." Actually, again, this would be another poor example. America widely dis-proves smoking and the fact that commercial advertising goes so strongly against smoking, and that the smoking population is minuscule compared to the actual smoking population, how can we say that most people will act of of their wants rather than their intellect that smoking is harmful? We simply cannot make an inference from this seeing as statistics of non-smokers range lot higher. Conclusion: Given that my opponent ha not offered any points of his own other than a few examples and his rebuttals, I have no further arguments to refute. I have decided not to offer extension arguments seeing as my opponent has not offered any, so it would be illogical for the con to do so. Technically all the con's job is to refute all of pros arguments and dis-prove the resolution. Something to take into account is how the con has managed to make a case with several arguments, and offer evidence as to how the topic applies more towards the progressive intellectual aspect. When this is taken into account, we notice how the con has successfully completed his objectives in the debate and has offered more than needed, whereas the pro, has only refuted. The factor that should sustain the debate in favor of con, is the fact that I have proven that emotional whims are not as likely to be acted upon as intellectual whims are. The pro has made the very obvious point that they still happen, but as far as terms of the topic, I have proven that intellectual truth are followed alot more extremely than not, which is what should be taken into account when judging this debate. Thank you.