Every Intellectual Truth must be believed

First off I notice that the topic at hand puts forth the implications that the Con, indeed should be supporting the topic, in which, notably, I would be pro. Unless that is to say that the word 'believe' is more of an emotional bias, and not one of reason, in which the proper standings would be acceptable. If in believing an action is proper, following emotions, rather than a fact that all intellect absolutely must be believed, the case in point stays the same. In either case, I as con, understand that for this debate, my goal will be to prove that intellectual reasoning is capable of influencing a person to follow the choice indicated by the reasoning when clashes with that person's emotional bias. I stand to negate the the topic insinuating that Every Intellectual Truth must be believed, for some of the following reasons. Now, it is impossible for either me or my opponent to speak for an entire group of people, as everyone is different and makes choices. So my goal in this debate will be to try and prove that emotional whims won't always over rules intellect based on logical reasoning. My first point will be that: People act off of emotional reasoning all the time, with productive consequence. I will use a fictional but believable example to prove this point. Let's say Cyndi is in an abusive relationship with someone that she feels she is in love with. She knows she cannot be with that person, because nothing good will become of the relationship, but at the same time, she feels she can't be without this man, because there is still a big part of her that loves him. Her emotional conflict tells her to stay with the man, while her intellect calmly tells her to leave. Though the emotional conflict is strong, it is only likely and plausible for her to leave and find a better relationship that is more supportive to her. People are confronted with these internal conflicts all the time, yet there intellect proving how strong the individual is, can always prevail when these people trust themselves enough to recognize that they deserve better, and that the only way to achieve that is to follow their intellect. My second point is that emotional reasons won't always make sense, and while struggling with emotions, not all humans are prone to go against logic to support emotional whims. There are alot of people who will go with their emotions and make wrong choices because of them. However that doesn't change the fact that they KNEW it was the wrong choice, and continued to act on it. Now let's not get confused and alluded to the fact that all emotional decisions are negative rather than intellect. A good example can be taken from the recent batman movie, in which there were two boats full of people who were both given detonators to a bomb on the others boat. The rule was to detonate it before a set time limit, or both boats would explode. The detonator would be allowed to live. As it turns our neither boat made the decision to detonate the bomb, in which both groups of people lived. This was an emotional decision that was made that was arguable a right decision. The intellectual decision would be to have saved the lives of their families to support a utilitarianism aspect. So let's not get confused with the fact that all emotional decisions should rule over intellectual decisions. I will be standing to support that when emotions should only supported if the intellect is subjectively a better decision than the emotional one. I will offer more points in the following rounds, but for now I will yield my time for my opponent so I can see more of the stance he chooses to take on this debate, such that I can provide better argumentation. But I conclude my opening proponent to say that while we know things are wrong and choose to make decisions on them, we will still know that the decision was wrong.