this house believes that breaking a promise is aleays immoral

Thank you for this debate; you have some very interesting ideas, however, I would just like to wrap up the debate by saying this: 1. My opponent claims that we have the power to adjust ourselves to the enviornment that we are living in, and therefore are responsible without a doubt for every broken promise. However he did not address my first point back in Round 1 -- if someone dies unexpectedly, the promise gets broken. I understand one having to keep things in mind before making a promise, i. e. traffic, however I think it is fair to say that one cannot determine when, where and how they will die if it is an unexpected death like many are. Therefore it is unforseen and unable to be avoided, thus negating my opponent's point that we can control or adjust our enviornment to enable us to keep our promises. 2. If my opponent feels that iminent death is *always* a possibility, along with other outside factors that we can not adjust, then what my opponent is arguing is that the very MAKING of a promise is immoral, not just the breaking of one. This mentality does not work or at the very least cannot win a debate. Here's why -- My opponent never claimed either in the resolution or in any of his rounds that making a promise was immoral (even though I brought it up in Round 2). Thus we have to assume that making a promise is moral. If the immorality of breaking a promise is all my opponent had to prove, he failed because 1. He did not address my first and important point, and 2. His logic explains why making a promise would be immoral but not why breaking a promise is in turn immoral. Furthermore, in Round 1 I asked about a promise that was also a threat and my opponent's weak response was, "You have mentioned in your argument that there are some promises made under a threat and i tell you that it is a very dissappointing thing to accept that particular commitment because in the very first place, from the very start of the action it is immoral so why would you do that? " Ok. .. so it's a little hard to make out, yes, but from what I gathered my opponent is suggesting that threatening someone is immoral in the first place, so why would someone. .. take back their threat? Who knows. But that point *I* was trying to make was that someone could make an immoral promise (ex. threat) and then decide to not go through with it. Was that an immoral decision? Or was it the MORAL thing to do? Similarly, another example of mine brought to attention the fact that someone could break a promise for the sake of upholding a very important value. My opponent's only response was again that whole "know your enviornment" bit but he/she did not address the main concept of my question/point: What if keeping a promise is more immoral than breaking a promise in a particular situation? In conclusion, I feel like my opponent argued the wrong point all along. His main rebuttal to all that I've said is that humans, as rational beings, should be aware of how the environment would affect all of our promises. This logic argues against promises in the first place - not the breaking of them. As I've mentioned, we must assume that my opponent believes that making a promise is not immoral. They did not specify otherwise nor did they respond to my inquisition. In that case, my examples and arguments still stand, and my opponent did not effectively refute them. At all. Meanwhile, I've countered everything he/she said.