It is highly irrational in this reality to make promises.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
The debate Resolution [Resolve] is hampered by the adverb "highly" to describe "irrational" because there is no suggestion to understand what constitute "high." No definition. Further, Pro failed to define "irrational," whereas both words are keywords of tree Resolve, and should be defined to aid voters in the intent of the Resolve. This has been suggested to Pro before.
Without adding definition, the argument is weak. Further still, Pro's argument equated "promise": with "guarantee," which enters the potential of legal territory of a promise, yet pro abandons that usual linkage. A grantee assured a promise by allowing legal action against the failure to uphold the promise. There is nothing irrational about that, whether talking a historical view, of present day.
Con successfully rebutted that that promises can be backed by grantees, but even if not, a person making a promise strengthens the promise by g=follow through to successful ly enhance reputation. thus defeating the Re3solve. Con wins.
Topic: it is highly irrational to make promises
"Highly". Should've just said irrational to have more chance for defence (Joke). You still defend very well, but your arguments are more philosophical and very fundamental. Respectable from my side, but easy to counter. Because promises actually have a function in society and this fact alone gives them 'rationality'. Now, wether it is irrational to actually make them, depends. To a philosopher who can't stand taking 'average human' actions because he understands the absurdity of reality and rebels and bla bla..., it would be HIGHLY irrational. But to the average homosapien, no, very functional and also affirming to other traits such as: Integrity, commitment, foresight, etc.
Sorry for turning this into my own argument. Shortly, your arguments do not stand for this particular statement.
Very nice, brief and accurate arguments from con.
People actually believe they can know the future. Debate art fools.