Answer questions before questioning the motive.

IntroductionAs PRO, I think I shall begin by offering an analysis of the resolution. Hopefully my analysis is reasonable. Considering CON has not offered their own analysis, I can only do my best to interpret what CON meant, based on the title and what CON mentioned in their R1 post. "Answer questions before questioning the motive."There are a few things that are immediately apparent about this resolution. Firstly, it seems to be some sort of command. I suppose there is a "should" here, that is to say "One should answer questions before questioning the motive". I think a key assumption here, though, is that the person we are discussing is willing to answer the question at all. There are some questions that are too personal to be answered, regardless of the motive. Essentially, we are looking at the situations wherein a person has to decide to answer a question or wonder why the question is being asked. I will be arguing that, on balance, one should answer a question before questioning the motives of the asker. When taking all things into account, it is wiser to answer a question rather than questioning the motives of the asker.I will attempt to provide sufficient reason to believe this is true. From CON"s opening statements, it would seem that Burden of Proof is shared in this debate. Arguments1.One should do that which is in their best interest.2.It is in one"s best interest to be a healthy skeptic.3.One should be a healthy skeptic.Defense of P1Premise one seems largely uncontroversial. One must eat and drink in order to live. If you do not eat and drink, you are likely to die. Hence, it is in your best interest to eat and drink, as this is the main way to stay alive. While there are some ways to stay alive (though most of these are for medical emergencies only), the most common way to stay alive is eating food and drinking something (most advisably water). If you wish to stay healthy, you should exercise and maintain a good diet. Hence, it is in your best interest to exercise and maintain a good diet. The list goes on and on.Healthy vs Unhealthy SkepticismSkepticism: "Doubt as to the truth of something" [1] There are times when it is good to question the motives of the people you talk to. Sometimes, people have malicious intent, however, if someone chooses to question a person"s motives, more often than they choose to answer the person"s questions, they are falling into the realm of unhealthy skepticism. Healthy skepticism is the state of mind wherein one is aware that all people are not perfect. Unhealthy skepticism is the state of mind wherein one believes that all people have ill intentions. One need not always question someone else"s motives in order to be a healthy skeptic. One does, however, need to be aware of those times wherein questioning the asker"s motives is the best course of action To believe, without reason, that someone has ill intent is to betray a certain level of paranoia. In order to be rational, one must only believe that which they have sufficient reason to believe. If one doesn"t have sufficient reason to believe that someone has ill intent, they should not believe said person has ill intent. To question a person"s motives seems to presume the guilt of the other person, whether this is indeed your intent or not. A healthy skeptic need not constantly question the motives of those that ask him questions. Rather, the skeptic will know when the proper time to do this is. Further, a skeptic, in general, does not automatically accept things as true. Rather, they wait until sufficient evidence is provided before believing anything.1.One should do that which is in their best interest.2.It is in one"s best interest to be rational.3.Hence, one should be rational.Defense of P2.Rationality is based on logic. Logic itself is not a guaranteed way to truth, since its use is not justified. Similar to induction, however, it is the best that we currently have as a means to get close to truth. We do not know whether or not we are brains in a vat or if other people exist, but these assumptions seem to be necessary in order to properly process existence. After assuming the validity of our senses and of logic, we are then able to parse together the world that seems to be around us. Unfortunately, logic and induction are really the best we have. Hence, we must use them to reach the truth. Rational people will hold a belief when presented with sufficient reason to believe. For instance, if I see that someone is bleeding, has a hole in their arm, and a bullet is removed from their shoulder, I have sufficient reason to believe they were shot. However, I do not have sufficient reason to believe the person that shot them is related to them.I will further my argument in later rounds. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...