Emotion is the basis of all decisions

I apologies for forfeiting the previous round due to number of person reasons. I just want to put it out there, that defining emotions as "just think of them as you normally would" is very unreliable for this debate. Each person subjectively defines emotions, and it simply will make no sense to let that definition hang. But it PRO insists on it, that let it be. It may be just be, but the following sentence makes no sense to me: "Many people think that they are mostly reasonable, that at the end of the day they relly on reason to make their decisions," If many people think that emotions are mostly reasonable, why would they at the end of the day rely on reason to make their decisions? I do really struggle to understand how PRO is analysing whether human"s decisions are made under emotions, if PRO himself refuses to analyse where the desire to make those decisions comes from. If I understand correctly, PRO states that reason and emotion are the tools to achieve the desire that brain creates. However, PRO fails to segregate 2 types of desires - physical desire and mental desire. First of all, physical desire. Here brain does not create a desire - he simply is a messenger. For Example, when the body runs low on iron it would send an impulse to the brain to make sure that the body consumes more apples. Here, no emotion, as such is included, apart from that feeling of hunger and strive to eat an apple. Second of all, mental desire. A desire to become a chef. This is where emotion take a big role. For example, If I enjoy cooking, watching cuisine TV shows, and I want to become a chef - that is my emotional excitement. Therefore here, yes, the brain does work out what is the best way to become a chef (attend a cooking school, extra cuisine lessons, read a cook book). Therefore, I agree to PRO that brain is somewhat a path finder. However, PRO did not recognise that there are also physical desires, for which we do not need emotions to make decisions. Once again I shall somewhat agree and disagree with PRO. It is true that intellect will not give us a gut feeling of what is right or wrong. But that does not mean that we cannot work out what is right or wrong using intellect only. Let me give you an example. There is a disease, very rare, called Alexithemia, where a person does not experience an y emotions or has a big trouble trying to differentiate and express them. According to PRO, if emotions are the key to act morally, then all people with that disease should be cold killers, thief, robber and etc. However, that is not the case. Because when one lives in a community where killing, stealing, bullying, violence is wrong by law, one can reasonably work it out that doing that stuff hurts people and therefore it is wrong to do so. That has been purely deduced on reason. I am going to go ahead and use PRO"s research against him: "the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion" The key word here is ARGUABLY. No further need to comment. I agree that if you try, you can deduce the trace of desires to an eventual initial emotions that caused it. But there are multiple example of where emotions have no part to play. A doctor, who sees a patient failing will make an instantaneous decision by the book, where no emotions would take place. So would a pilot whose plain requires and emergency landing. So would a firefighter, who would rush into a building on fire, because he is required by the job to save whoever is inside.