Emotion is a weakness in decision making.

I accept your revised definition as I agree it is more fair. On my opponents first argument. The two examples I have provided in my opening are just that examples. My opponent has said that the first example with Female A and Female B is not what this debate is about. Decision making happens within every choice people make day to day this is nothing different. ". .stem from a desire to retain being exclusive. " This desire to retain being exclusive leads to irrational thought and voiding facts. "We filter our observations of the world through our own beliefs. We may tend to focus on any information that agrees with our perspective and to ignore information that disagrees with our belief. " [1] This quote also relates to my second example with the Senator. As for his second point, Human irrationality, I disagree to his claim that people are not entirely capable of coherent or rational methods. A person is capable of allowing their belief system to become second in the thought process if the person wills it. At a younger age children are taught to rely on their emotion rather than presented fact. ". .it might just be a useful way for creating a dichotomy between certain types of behaviors. " I agree except I would say it IS useful to do such. Most things are not as complicated as people make them out to be. Now onto my opponents second argument. ". .. emotions are simply payoff modifiers, meaning that the way in which we act is still rational with emotions, it's just that emotions modify how we act. " That exact quote is the problem with humans. People have a tendency to, as you said, rationalize with emotions and that is the problem. A person may not be completely rational with a bias of emotion. By removing emotion from the equation he or she may find a more suitable outcome within the situation. The cost is not getting the feel good about their decision. "In a world where we have advanced to a point where we no longer need to worry about fulfilling our basic beliefs, a world without emotion seems impressively stark and devoid of most anything other than eating. " Yes you are correct about stark not so much for just eating. Clearly there is more to life than eating but I am thinking that line was meant to be a exaggeration. A person without emotion would just go about life as one does without any consequence. Desires as you have suggested I may argue would most likely be trivial to someone without emotion. ". .some emotional component. " Correct. It is quite impossible to devoid emotion from all aspects of life as per your example with the train. The idea of my argument is that a person would be better off without emotions. Being able to eliminate any emotional component would be a step forward as a species. ". .we say that the decision making process is valuable because it helps us reach the things that we value. " To reach something that he or she values by their decision making is justifying their means. To elaborate upon my opinion above, values are questionable. Ones values may not be the same as others which leads to a slight conflict of interest when a decision is needed between two people. It would be better as a species to void emotion from life entirely so that reasonable responses can be accomplished. On argument three. My opponents first example was not based primarily on an emotional response. The decision was based upon a reasonable difference between the two parties to chose from. The decision focused upon the safety of yourself. On example two he stated, "knowing that choosing the latter would severely delay the former. " This is a perfect example of reasonable thought. As a teacher it is part of your job to grade papers. Yes you may have chosen to have some enjoyment in a way you deem fit but as you have said it would only delay it. By choosing to finish part of your deal with the students you have made a sensible choice. I fail to see how emotion guided your decision. [1]. http://www.mental-health-survival-guide.com...