The Instigator
moshe
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Every Intellectual Truth must be believed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,439 times Debate No: 14795
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

moshe

Pro

The claim is that even is assuming it's possible to reach an answer through an intellectual process as to the right thing that should be done, it will only be followed through if it's accepted emotionally. The reasoning for this claim is that (Under the assertion that Humans have evolved and weren't created, thought even without this assertion the following should be scientifically verifiable) Humans, in the most basic level of their (our) decision making processes are influenced by raw emotion and not by intellect (or considerably less so). Con must prove that intellectual reasoning is capable of influencing a person to follow the choice indicated by the reasoning when clashes with that person's emotional bias. It's assumed that the choice is a non trivial one since otherwise the emotional bias would be a trivial one as well.
I thank Con in advance for accepting this debate.
TUF

Con

I thank my opponent for offering up such an intriguing topic for debate, and am excited to debate such a philosophical topic.

First off I notice that the topic at hand puts forth the implications that the Con, indeed should be supporting the topic, in which, notably, I would be pro. Unless that is to say that the word 'believe' is more of an emotional bias, and not one of reason, in which the proper standings would be acceptable. If in believing an action is proper, following emotions, rather than a fact that all intellect absolutely must be believed, the case in point stays the same. In either case, I as con, understand that for this debate, my goal will be to prove that intellectual reasoning is capable of influencing a person to follow the choice indicated by the reasoning when clashes with that person's emotional bias.

I stand to negate the the topic insinuating that Every Intellectual Truth must be believed, for some of the following reasons.

Now, it is impossible for either me or my opponent to speak for an entire group of people, as everyone is different and makes choices. So my goal in this debate will be to try and prove that emotional whims won't always over rules intellect based on logical reasoning.

My first point will be that: People act off of emotional reasoning all the time, with productive consequence. I will use a fictional but believable example to prove this point. Let's say Cyndi is in an abusive relationship with someone that she feels she is in love with. She knows she cannot be with that person, because nothing good will become of the relationship, but at the same time, she feels she can't be without this man, because there is still a big part of her that loves him. Her emotional conflict tells her to stay with the man, while her intellect calmly tells her to leave. Though the emotional conflict is strong, it is only likely and plausible for her to leave and find a better relationship that is more supportive to her. People are confronted with these internal conflicts all the time, yet there intellect proving how strong the individual is, can always prevail when these people trust themselves enough to recognize that they deserve better, and that the only way to achieve that is to follow their intellect.

My second point is that emotional reasons won't always make sense, and while struggling with emotions, not all humans are prone to go against logic to support emotional whims. There are alot of people who will go with their emotions and make wrong choices because of them. However that doesn't change the fact that they KNEW it was the wrong choice, and continued to act on it. Now let's not get confused and alluded to the fact that all emotional decisions are negative rather than intellect. A good example can be taken from the recent batman movie, in which there were two boats full of people who were both given detonators to a bomb on the others boat. The rule was to detonate it before a set time limit, or both boats would explode. The detonator would be allowed to live. As it turns our neither boat made the decision to detonate the bomb, in which both groups of people lived. This was an emotional decision that was made that was arguable a right decision. The intellectual decision would be to have saved the lives of their families to support a utilitarianism aspect. So let's not get confused with the fact that all emotional decisions should rule over intellectual decisions. I will be standing to support that when emotions should only supported if the intellect is subjectively a better decision than the emotional one.

I will offer more points in the following rounds, but for now I will yield my time for my opponent so I can see more of the stance he chooses to take on this debate, such that I can provide better argumentation.

But I conclude my opening proponent to say that while we know things are wrong and choose to make decisions on them, we will still know that the decision was wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
moshe

Pro

points made by Con:
1) Not all emotional decisions are bad.
Refutation: Irrelevant, the topic is whether emotion is bound by intelligence in decision making.

(I might add that the point stated in (1) and the point that is shown by the example are two different ones, and not the same)

1.a)A fictional case where an intelligent reasoning leads to a decision in direct conflict with emotion.
Refutation: There needs to be an entire debate dedicated to the definition of love, and then another for whether or not people are capable of judging if they are feeling it or not. On the surface a distinction can be made for the love you feel for your family and the love that is really expressed by the words "I love You" that are spoken in the context of a romance. When dealing with the love to family I continue to uphold the claim that the emotional bias will overcome any intellectual argumentation in the exception of the case when said argument is backed up by an emotional bias of its own, in which case the argument is rendered irrelevant. However in the case of the second kind of love I will concede the point and agree that in the case of an emotional whim it isn't as clear that the emotional bias will prove dominant.

2) Since emotional opinions do not make sense people don't follow them.
Refutation: This is an assertion by Con on the very question being debated.

2.a) People choose logic over emotional whims.
Refutation: Conceded, however as I wrote for point 1.a, the claim is still valid for a none whim based emotional bias, as opposed to a whimsy on the persons part in that specific moment in time. To clarify as to what type of emotional bias I am referring to I will bring an example later on, but for now I will say that any bias that is a component of the person's world view, and is a relatively constant is included in the claim.

2.b) 'People' know that they are making the wrong choice.
Refutation: This is irrelevant since the point of conflict in the debate is whether people ACT upon their intellectual reasoning's).

Perhaps an example might better illustrate the claim.
Up until a few decades ago the status of woman was clearly less than that of men. However the thinkers that maybe pronounced that it was illogical that a woman could not vote, or earn the same pay as a man. However, even after that logical conclusion was reached the men of that generation still discriminated against women. According to Con since it was decided logical that women are equal to men then no discrimination should have occurred hence forth. On the other hand if it is understood that the real determining force behind a persons decisions is his emotional bias it is clear that the reason men discriminate is due to an ingrained cultural bias against women.

Another example would from smoking where people aware of the detrimental effects smoking has on their health still smoke. Though I do acknowledge that in the case of smoking it isn't an emotional bias per se. still it is an example of a case where intellect does not win the day.

By the same token any addiction can be included in this point.
TUF

Con

Rebuttals:
First off the point with emotional decisions being negative was brought up for clarifications purposes. Seeing as you are pro , I would have expected an opening argument better defining the terms of this debate. Seeing as you made no arguments, or very many terms to define the debate as, I didn't quite understand if this topic was supposed to include that people choose to make negative decisions with their emotions rather than the intellectual.

1. Fictional story.

Here my opponent agrees that in contexts of a relationship where (as my opponent would define it) love may be a faulty word, that intellect would overrule emotions. Given that the topic states "Every intellectual truth must be believed" we must assume that what the pro is trying to accomplish, is proving a point that in all cases, the truth must be believed by the individual. Given that my opponent concedes to a very direct application where a truth is believed by an individual, and followed according to the scenario, we must look at how this has proven that while intellectual truth are held, the are followed as well as believed. He gives an counter argument that a family member would be differential to a relationship, but I in know way could see too much of a difference. If a person were in an abusive situation with a family member, it's not only their intellect, but their natural instinct that pushes them out of their environment. It happens all the time actually!
When children are abused, they have to make that first move to be taken out of their abusive environment. The statistics show that obviously alot of these moves had been made.

http://pediatrics.about.com...

And if the intellectual decision wasn't made, then the statistics wouldn't even exist! This just shows that emotional decisions can be hard, (yes we all know that) but humans still go with their gut on most things in order to prevent being hurt, or submitting to doubtful situations.

2. Nonsensical emotions.

Yes this is the question of the debate, is to determine whether humans are likely to make these decisions. And my point was that it is extremely more likely. If I know a poisonous apple is bad, I'm not going to eat it. And if I do, then that was a bad decision. So we can automatically assume that people who make poor decisions based on emotional whims believed that the decision was poor while still acting on that specific decision. My goal for the debate is to say that all humans aren't likely to make that mistake. Oh, sure, we could find examples of a few people who have, but as for the majority, I think it's safe to say that most would choose going with the believed prospect of knowing their decision was wrong, thus not making said decision. Thus, we must see the logic this proves in favor of con.

"I will say that any bias that is a component of the person's world view, and is a relatively constant is included in the claim."

However the fact that world views differ so much, almost begs us the question of how make an inference off of just one emotional bias such as the "female discrimination" example that you brought up? Also the example is almost useless in terms of logic. Had their not been a significant number of people to support the woman's right movement, the movement would have never passed through our democratic society. Given that their was a more overwhelming population against woman discrimination than there were FOR it, we cannot say that emotional whims over rule the intellectual prospect that discrimination is relatively bad to our society. Which, again, is why the laws were passed. Your emotional bias you apply to these men, count for almost nothing, as the population against adversity widely overwhelms the population conceding to emotion. Which again shows that intellect is followed more thoroughly than emotional whims.

You say specifically that people "act" on these emotions which you think proves your point. I'm sure we all know people "act" on nonsensical emotions. My goal is to prove that more people than not will choose to act off of intellectual knowledge rather than the opposite.

"Another example would from smoking where people aware of the detrimental effects smoking has on their health still smoke. Though I do acknowledge that in the case of smoking it isn't an emotional bias per se. still it is an example of a case where intellect does not win the day."

Actually, again, this would be another poor example. America widely dis-proves smoking and the fact that commercial advertising goes so strongly against smoking, and that the smoking population is minuscule compared to the actual smoking population, how can we say that most people will act of of their wants rather than their intellect that smoking is harmful? We simply cannot make an inference from this seeing as statistics of non-smokers range lot higher.

Conclusion: Given that my opponent ha not offered any points of his own other than a few examples and his rebuttals, I have no further arguments to refute. I have decided not to offer extension arguments seeing as my opponent has not offered any, so it would be illogical for the con to do so. Technically all the con's job is to refute all of pros arguments and dis-prove the resolution. Something to take into account is how the con has managed to make a case with several arguments, and offer evidence as to how the topic applies more towards the progressive intellectual aspect. When this is taken into account, we notice how the con has successfully completed his objectives in the debate and has offered more than needed, whereas the pro, has only refuted. The factor that should sustain the debate in favor of con, is the fact that I have proven that emotional whims are not as likely to be acted upon as intellectual whims are. The pro has made the very obvious point that they still happen, but as far as terms of the topic, I have proven that intellectual truth are followed alot more extremely than not, which is what should be taken into account when judging this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
moshe

Pro

The main objective of Pro in this debate was to prove that in order for a decision to be based on an intelectual argument, the truthfullness of the arguments must be FELT by the
individual ( in a non trivial matter). In all of Cons examples he has failed to bring a single case where the individual went against his moral compass so to speak and
based a desicion soley upon his Intelectual conviction that this was the truth.
Both of Cons examples were based on abusive relationships:
1) with a partner
2) with family
additionaly Con reversed the tables on both of my examples:
1) discrimination against women
2) smoking

Cons throughout the debate tried to show that even with an emotional incentive to the contrary most people followed the logical choice.
Con therefore concludes that an intelectual truth can overrule prejudice.

HOWEVER:

Con has failed to acknowledge the emotional bias that supported the Intelectual choice. In addition even if intellectual choice wasn't supported emotionaly
it was still part of the worldview makeup of the persons involved and not solely an intellectual truth.
in particular:
In the case of the abusive relationships, an integral part of being a normal human being is the desire to avoid pain.
and so the intelectual choice is strongly supported by the childs/womans in a non intellectual manner.

In the case of discrimination. Law making in essence is merely a group of people deciding over the best or the most just decision and as such it is still on the
plane of intellectual reasoning and isn't relevent to the question being discussed, will men who are basicly sexists act indiscriminatly. and even if con were to
show that they did, I would claim that the self survervial instinct of the men was the force behind that decision.

in the case of smoking Con has refuted himself. He claims that america is an example as to where intellect ruled over emotion/desire/prejudice yet he also states that
"America widely dis-proves smoking and the fact that commercial advertising goes so strongly against smoking...". This is an example as to where an intelectual choice was overruled
by the populations desire since if Con was right there would have been no need for the commercial advertising to push against smoking. it took many years for
the concept of smoking being BAD to sink in to the populations core beliefs.

I again restate the point that is integral to Pro in this debate.
An intelectual truth must in sync with the persons (moral compass)/emotional state/core beliefs and so on.

a final example to let the point sink in.

If someone could prove logicaly beyond all reasonable doubt, that the killing of "defective" babies is the right thing to do, no matter how convincing he may be,
Not a single person from the western countries would follow through.
TUF

Con

REBUTTALS.

"The main objective of Pro in this debate was to prove that in order for a decision to be based on an intellectual argument, the truthfulness of the arguments must be FELT by the
individual ( in a non trivial matter). In all of Cons examples he has failed to bring a single case where the individual went against his moral compass so to speak and
based a decision solely upon his Intellectual conviction that this was the truth."

I think the pro has not noticed the contradictory statement in first sentence. If the logical answer must be felt as well, then obviously an intellectual truth can be an emotional truth made as well. So by the pro saying this, he is allowing the statement of an emotion be a truth as well if a person so chooses this, thus proving my argument.

Now for the second part, the debate never clarified that we had to go against a moral compass to make a intellectual conviction. And as you yourself said, morality, is practically irrelevant when it comes to this debate, so again you contradict yourself.

Next my opponent proceeds to make an argument on my examples used. However my opponent never clarified that the debate should be tied into any specific factor, and I have been very respectful to my opponents beginning statements. Given that, we must assume that absolutely all intellects and all emotions must be accounted for and cannot be specified to any variable.

"Con has failed to acknowledge the emotional bias that supported the Intellectual choice. In addition even if intellectual choice wasn't supported emotionally
it was still part of the worldview makeup of the persons involved and not solely an intellectual truth.
in particular:
In the case of the abusive relationships, an integral part of being a normal human being is the desire to avoid pain.
and so the intellectual choice is strongly supported by the childs/womans in a non intellectual manner."

Again as I said earlier, this doesn't change the fact that without any premises, it was still an intellectual choice that has been followed. Given your rules of the debate that we must go by, all these examples still hold weight given that an emotional decision can be an intellectual one as well. When it comes to discrimination, we know that there MUST be an over-ruling populace of people who believe against discrimination because they know it is wrong, or else there wouldn't be laws in our democratic society permitting them. Thus even though discrimination continues proving that some people still follow that emotional bias, we know that give the law was made in the first place, that there must be a majority who followed intellect.

"In the case of discrimination. Law making in essence is merely a group of people deciding over the best or the most just decision and as such it is still on the
plane of intellectual reasoning and isn't relevant to the question being discussed, will men who are basically sexists act indiscriminately. and even if con were to
show that they did, I would claim that the self survervial instinct of the men was the force behind that decision."

Our society is a democracy. Woman started out with no rights. Obviously we must have seen the intellect in giving them rights given the fact that it happened. That 'group' of people was the majority of the united states. The statement "will men who are basically sexists..." Should not be accounted for. Is that saying all men are sexists? Which is why we still choose to marry woman and treat them to such high standards right? Every human being will have a discriminative thought, yet that does make them a discriminator until they act on that thought.

"This is an example as to where an intellectual choice was overruled
by the populations desire since if Con was right there would have been no need for the commercial advertising to push against smoking. it took many years for
the concept of smoking being BAD to sink in to the populations core beliefs."

Same same. Populous against smokers = unanimous anti-smoker. Only 25.7 percent of American men smoke, with only 21% of women who smoke. This leaves a huge ratio of 75-80 percent of American men and woman who do not smoke, showing us that 75-80 percent of people choose the logical healthy choice rather than not.
The reason smoking wasn't determined bad for such a long time was the fact that people didn't know the harmful effects cigarettes had. Given the knowledge, people realized that it was only illogical to use them which is why the numbers of non-smokers succeed the smokers.
Logic wins this argument, not emotion.

http://www.quitsmokinghub.com...

"I again restate the point that is integral to Pro in this debate.
An intellectual truth must in sync with the persons (moral compass)/emotional state/core beliefs and so on."

My goal in this debate has been to prove so and I successfully have. All major choices have somewhat of an intellectual purpose that a person would recognize based on their 'said' morals, while their emotions may strain the opposite.

"If someone could prove logically beyond all reasonable doubt, that the killing of "defective" babies is the right thing to do, no matter how convincing he may be,
Not a single person from the western countries would follow through"

How could you prove something of a moral value? If right an wrong are subjective to a persons individual beliefs, or societal beliefs, how could someone ever prove that it is the right thing to do? This example is merely a fallacy and should be un-accounted for.

ARGUMENTS.

My argument that 'people act off of logic all the time' still stands. No matter how many people you find that don't, you will always find even more people who do. Logical reasoning and intellect will over rule emotions even when it is for the worse. We still torture human beings in order to obtain information, while on an emotional stimulus, people would dis-agree. The reality of life, is that it isn't fair. Most human beings have realized that in order to succeed in life, we can't always get what we want through acting on emotional basis's. Intellect is always used to accomplish any individual goals a person may have. As my opponent said, some people's intellect involves a moral compass, which means that intellect doesn't always have harmful effects. However in the end this argument proves how intellect rules emotion.

My second argument that emotions don't always make sense, also still stands. Human beings are generally smart. We know when something we do will have a harmful effect, and if we continue to do it based on an emotional whim, we know we had made an illogical choice. I'm not going to touch a hot stove if I know it's going to burn me. Given this, there are people who make emotional choices, but I think it's safe to say that there's an overwhelming amount of people who don't.

Counter-insurgency is still an effective tool in America when applied to gain over a local populous trust, which is why we are a democracy. All our laws made by the people, are chosen by us. Our constitution was written off of logic, in order to perfect a society and enable it to work. We use our intellect every single day to achieve all goals.

Family, relationships, friendships, we all have emotional bias towards. But we won't make illogical choices often to support these indifference's. We humans have figured out how to successfully make logical choices while at the same time supporting our emotions.

I conclude, that I have proved a vast many of arguments that show us how logic over-rules human emotions. My opponent has conceded and even agreed to some of the points I have made. When evaluating the round and weighing factors, we must look at how the con has supported the resolution, and followed all rules applied by the pro in round 1. Con has successfully dis-proved the topic, defining all terms by the pro's definitions. I thank my opponent for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
Strange. I wonder what the Vulcans would have to say about this...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Robikan 6 years ago
Robikan
mosheTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
mosheTUFTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't buy many of Pro's arguments; they seemed rather shabby. Plus, Con had sources, which Pro lacked. 5 points to Con.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
mosheTUFTied
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:30