Every Intellectual Truth must be believed

REBUTTALS. "The main objective of Pro in this debate was to prove that in order for a decision to be based on an intellectual argument, the truthfulness of the arguments must be FELT by the individual ( in a non trivial matter). In all of Cons examples he has failed to bring a single case where the individual went against his moral compass so to speak and based a decision solely upon his Intellectual conviction that this was the truth. " I think the pro has not noticed the contradictory statement in first sentence. If the logical answer must be felt as well, then obviously an intellectual truth can be an emotional truth made as well. So by the pro saying this, he is allowing the statement of an emotion be a truth as well if a person so chooses this, thus proving my argument. Now for the second part, the debate never clarified that we had to go against a moral compass to make a intellectual conviction. And as you yourself said, morality, is practically irrelevant when it comes to this debate, so again you contradict yourself. Next my opponent proceeds to make an argument on my examples used. However my opponent never clarified that the debate should be tied into any specific factor, and I have been very respectful to my opponents beginning statements. Given that, we must assume that absolutely all intellects and all emotions must be accounted for and cannot be specified to any variable. "Con has failed to acknowledge the emotional bias that supported the Intellectual choice. In addition even if intellectual choice wasn't supported emotionally it was still part of the worldview makeup of the persons involved and not solely an intellectual truth. in particular: In the case of the abusive relationships, an integral part of being a normal human being is the desire to avoid pain. and so the intellectual choice is strongly supported by the childs/womans in a non intellectual manner. " Again as I said earlier, this doesn't change the fact that without any premises, it was still an intellectual choice that has been followed. Given your rules of the debate that we must go by, all these examples still hold weight given that an emotional decision can be an intellectual one as well. When it comes to discrimination, we know that there MUST be an over-ruling populace of people who believe against discrimination because they know it is wrong, or else there wouldn't be laws in our democratic society permitting them. Thus even though discrimination continues proving that some people still follow that emotional bias, we know that give the law was made in the first place, that there must be a majority who followed intellect. "In the case of discrimination. Law making in essence is merely a group of people deciding over the best or the most just decision and as such it is still on the plane of intellectual reasoning and isn't relevant to the question being discussed, will men who are basically sexists act indiscriminately. and even if con were to show that they did, I would claim that the self survervial instinct of the men was the force behind that decision. " Our society is a democracy. Woman started out with no rights. Obviously we must have seen the intellect in giving them rights given the fact that it happened. That 'group' of people was the majority of the united states. The statement "will men who are basically sexists. .. " Should not be accounted for. Is that saying all men are sexists? Which is why we still choose to marry woman and treat them to such high standards right? Every human being will have a discriminative thought, yet that does make them a discriminator until they act on that thought. "This is an example as to where an intellectual choice was overruled by the populations desire since if Con was right there would have been no need for the commercial advertising to push against smoking. it took many years for the concept of smoking being BAD to sink in to the populations core beliefs. " Same same. Populous against smokers = unanimous anti-smoker. Only 25.7 percent of American men smoke, with only 21% of women who smoke. This leaves a huge ratio of 75-80 percent of American men and woman who do not smoke, showing us that 75-80 percent of people choose the logical healthy choice rather than not. The reason smoking wasn't determined bad for such a long time was the fact that people didn't know the harmful effects cigarettes had. Given the knowledge, people realized that it was only illogical to use them which is why the numbers of non-smokers succeed the smokers. Logic wins this argument, not emotion. . http://www.quitsmokinghub.com... "I again restate the point that is integral to Pro in this debate. An intellectual truth must in sync with the persons (moral compass)/emotional state/core beliefs and so on. " My goal in this debate has been to prove so and I successfully have. All major choices have somewhat of an intellectual purpose that a person would recognize based on their 'said' morals, while their emotions may strain the opposite. "If someone could prove logically beyond all reasonable doubt, that the killing of "defective" babies is the right thing to do, no matter how convincing he may be, Not a single person from the western countries would follow through" How could you prove something of a moral value? If right an wrong are subjective to a persons individual beliefs, or societal beliefs, how could someone ever prove that it is the right thing to do? This example is merely a fallacy and should be un-accounted for. ARGUMENTS. My argument that 'people act off of logic all the time' still stands. No matter how many people you find that don't, you will always find even more people who do. Logical reasoning and intellect will over rule emotions even when it is for the worse. We still torture human beings in order to obtain information, while on an emotional stimulus, people would dis-agree. The reality of life, is that it isn't fair. Most human beings have realized that in order to succeed in life, we can't always get what we want through acting on emotional basis's. Intellect is always used to accomplish any individual goals a person may have. As my opponent said, some people's intellect involves a moral compass, which means that intellect doesn't always have harmful effects. However in the end this argument proves how intellect rules emotion. My second argument that emotions don't always make sense, also still stands. Human beings are generally smart. We know when something we do will have a harmful effect, and if we continue to do it based on an emotional whim, we know we had made an illogical choice. I'm not going to touch a hot stove if I know it's going to burn me. Given this, there are people who make emotional choices, but I think it's safe to say that there's an overwhelming amount of people who don't. Counter-insurgency is still an effective tool in America when applied to gain over a local populous trust, which is why we are a democracy. All our laws made by the people, are chosen by us. Our constitution was written off of logic, in order to perfect a society and enable it to work. We use our intellect every single day to achieve all goals. Family, relationships, friendships, we all have emotional bias towards. But we won't make illogical choices often to support these indifference's. We humans have figured out how to successfully make logical choices while at the same time supporting our emotions. I conclude, that I have proved a vast many of arguments that show us how logic over-rules human emotions. My opponent has conceded and even agreed to some of the points I have made. When evaluating the round and weighing factors, we must look at how the con has supported the resolution, and followed all rules applied by the pro in round 1. Con has successfully dis-proved the topic, defining all terms by the pro's definitions.