The Instigator
francis
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
VaLoR
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

breaking a promise is always immoral

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  
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: 12/20/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,205 times Debate No: 709
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

francis

Pro

in my side i strongly believe that that breaking a promise is always immoral because it does not only give emotional pain it also makes people specially children to think that they are not loved once their parents broke their promise and lastly it will also promote the habit of breaking a promise all throughout once this kind of deed will be accepted in our society
VaLoR

Con

Let me first start off by requesting that potential voters choose the winner based on the strength of their argument rather than their position in this debate.

Breaking a promise is not ALWAYS immoral. Sometimes promises are broken by inevitable circumstances.

Ex: Sally asks Sam to watch her sing at the talent show on Saturday. Sam assures Sally she will come by promising so. Sally performs at the talent show, but Sam never shows up as she had promised. As it turns out, Sam was on her way when her car died and she was unable to get a lift from anyone else in time to watch Sally perform.

Thus, because she made an attempt to fulfill the promise, her breaking of said promise is no longer immoral because she did everything she could to get there. If there were no signs of the problem prior to her promise being made, she couldn't have even suspected such a scenario. The promise is still broken, but it wasn't her fault; therefore, the action was not immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
francis

Pro

let me say that the example given by my opponent was very weak because if the person who told the promise was very willing to attend, then that particular person may come earlier so that if theres an accidenty like the one being used,the person can prepare and if the person was truly wise she would have checked her car before going to the show, its like going to a war without knowing how many weapons you have. Do you think that the boy would believe that kind of excuse if it is not that credible ?
VaLoR

Con

Unexpected circumstances arise from time to time that prevent one from fulfilling promises. I could go even further to give examples of potential, unplanned for snow storms, flash floods, earth quakes etc. that prevent one from getting to intended destinations. Rare circumstances indeed, but valid nonetheless and applicable to the matter of discussion.

This is to make no mention of your defensive counter argument stating that it was her responsibility to leave early. That it was her *responsibility* to expect the unexpected. No one said it was reason to excuse the breaking of said promise, but that the breaking of said promise was not due to immoral behavior.

I'm sure everyone can relate to a situation in which an unexpected circumstance prevented them from getting somewhere they needed to be, or prevented them from fulfilling a promise. Sure, the promise was broken, but not due to immorality.

Consider example two:

While hanging out with friends, Nick hears of a new candy bar called a "Snickers". Eager to taste this new candy bar, upon arriving home, Nick makes his older brother Tom promise to buy him this new candy bar when he stops at the store later. Tom agrees. Tom goes to the store and picks up a Snickers at the check out line. After checking the ingredients, Tom realizes the Snickers bar contains peanuts. Nick is allergic to peanuts. Tom puts the Snickers back and buys Nick a different, peanut-free candy bar.

Thus, the promise was broken, but if Tom had fulfilled his promise it would have endangered Nicks health; therefor, the action was not immoral.
Debate Round No. 2
francis

Pro

francis forfeited this round.
VaLoR

Con

In conclusion, breaking a promise is not ALWAYS immoral. Certain inevitable, unpredictable circumstances may arise that prevent one from fulfilling a promise. If one does all one can do to fulfill a given promise, it would be unjust to label their actions "immoral". After all, they did all they could do to fulfill the promise. The promise remains broken, but not due to immoral or inconsiderate behavior. There are also various instances where honest, innocent ignorance might lead to a mistaken promise, where the breaking of said promise is for the benefit of the promisee, and therefore, not due to immoral or inconsiderate behavior.

Thus, I rest my case, and leave the decision to the voting public.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
The vote, quite clearly, has to go to the Con side in this debate. The only argument that the Pro team refuted, the Con responded to quite clearly and reasonably. The Pro side dropped all other arguments.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
i personally think that this debate is just a little stupid.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
francis , Thats ridiculous ... she should have checked her car ... I'm sorry but I have left my house and then unexpectedly something has gone wrong with my car ...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
francisVaLoRTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by VaLoR 9 years ago
VaLoR
francisVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
francisVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by dbaytor 9 years ago
dbaytor
francisVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
francisVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by tremendoustie 9 years ago
tremendoustie
francisVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by ahundredhighways 9 years ago
ahundredhighways
francisVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by nrw 9 years ago
nrw
francisVaLoRTied
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