The Instigator
user_name
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pfalcon1318
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Answer questions before questioning the motive.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Pfalcon1318
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 63615
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

user_name

Con

  1. 1. Fundamentals of questioning include what the answer is supposed to indicate!

  2. 2. Furthermore, proposing that blindly answering a question will result in either accidental success or unintentional downfall, the first being undeserved and the second being detrimental.

  3. 3. Who is to accept? This is the question you must understand the motive of before answering, after all!

In summary, there is no purpose to the question without the motive to use the answer for a predetermined purpose. Thus, to answer without questioning the purpose results in undeniably non-intended outcomes for the interviewee.

All the best respectable audience,

user_name.

Pfalcon1318

Pro

Introduction
As 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.
Arguments
1.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 P1
Premise 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 Skepticism
Skepticism: "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...
Debate Round No. 1
user_name

Con

user_name forfeited this round.
Pfalcon1318

Pro


Introduction



I really do dislike forfeits. Hopefully CON decides to post some argument next round. I would like to remind the audience that we are look more at general cases. There are cases where one should wonder about the motives someone has for asking a particular question. That is not what this debate is about. CON seems to be claiming that one must understand the motives behind a question before answering it. I disagree vehemently with this. Now, it is hardly reasonable to believe that one should never question someone’s motives for asking a question. It is, however, reasonable to hold that one should be aware of the situations wherein questioning a person’s motives is rational and necessary.



The arguments that I have already made are:



  1. 1. One should do that which is in their best interest.

  2. 2. It is in one’s best interest to be a healthy skeptic.

  3. 3. One should be a healthy skeptic.


And:



  1. 1. One should do that which is in their best interest.

  2. 2. It is in one’s best interest to be rational.

  3. 3. One should be rational.


These two arguments together are not crucial to my position, but they do have a degree of weight to them. One should be rational and a healthy skeptic.


Questioning Motives


Now, perhaps CON has a different interpretation of this phrase, but this makes me think of a very suspicious person. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it is irrational to never be suspicious of other people, however it is just as irrational to always be suspicious of other people. To regularly question the motives of someone asking a question is to be more skeptical than is healthy.


Essentially, the level of skepticism that CON seems to advocate is on the side of mistrust and paranoia. Now, this is an argument from consequences, I will admit. I am submitting it because it is in direct contradiction of my previous arguments. Since rational people only believe that which has sufficient reason to be believed, being mistrusting of people for no reason is ill-advised.


I think I’ll leave my arguments here, and see what CON has to offer. Hopefully, they won’t forfeit again.


Debate Round No. 2
user_name

Con

user_name forfeited this round.
Pfalcon1318

Pro

Win by default i guess. Vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 3
user_name

Con

user_name forfeited this round.
Pfalcon1318

Pro


Previous Arguments


Argument 1.



  1. 1. One should do that which is in their best interest.

  2. 2. It is in one’s best interest to be a healthy skeptic.

  3. 3. Therefore, one should be a healthy skeptic.



Argument 2.



  1. 1. One should do that which is in their best interest.

  2. 2. It is in one’s best interest to be rational.

  3. 3. Therefore, one should be rational.



Argument 3.



  1. 1. One should be rational.

  2. 2. Hence, one should not be irrational.

  3. 3. It is irrational to be suspicious of another person’s motives for asking a question without reason.

  4. 4. Therefore, one should avoid being suspicious of another person’s motives for asking a question without reason.



CON’s Arguments


CON’s arguments are essentially non-existent. There were no rebuttals, nor any positive arguments. Considering all of the forfeits, I should (at least) get points for conduct.



CONCLUSIONS


This hasn’t really been much of a debate, but since I was PRO, I offered some positive arguments. Taken together, I think they provide some good reasons to withhold suspicion until one has sufficient reasons, thus answering questions prior to questioning the asker’s motive.


Debate Round No. 4
user_name

Con

user_name forfeited this round.
Pfalcon1318

Pro

This debate could've been interesting, but CON never provided any arguments past round 1. I do appreciate the topic though. It's one to think about.

Conduct should go to me, in light of the forfeits, and arguments should go to me due to the arguments that I have presented in defense of my position.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
I don't see what the question being debated is either. It seems like maybe they are arguing that questioning without purpose to that questioning is useless? Or that it results in unintended outcomes? I don't really see what the argument being debated is.
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
Heh heh; It's easier for me to discount answers by questioning motive.
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
My mistake; Your opposed to answering questions before questioning the questioners motive.
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
So you are taking the opposing position to the veracity of the 3 statements?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
user_namePfalcon1318Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF